UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA   SAN  DIEGO 


3  1822  02665  2784 


ESMSJSSSWf^^ 


JS^^^^SS^^fS^^^sS^^SSisS^SBSSSSSS^^S^ 


Social  Sciences  &  Humanities  Library 

University  of  California,  Sar.  Diego 
Please  Note:  This  item  is  subject  to  recall. 

Date  Due 


SEP  24  1999 

CI  39  (5/97) 


UCSD  Lib. 


Rev.  Prof.  Alexander  B.  Bruce,  D.D. 


3  1822  02665  2784 


=2. 


BY    REV.   ALEXANDER    B.    BRUCE,    D.D. 

Professor  ef  Apologetic:    \  ttameni  Exegesis. 

Free  Church  College,  G  . 


THE  PARABOLIC  TEACHING  OF 
CHBIST.    A  System 

cal  study  cf  the  Parables  of  our 
Lord.  Sto.  Goth.  Third  Revised 
Ed.:. 

THE  HUMILIATION  OF  CHRIST, 
in  its  Physical.  Ethical,  and  Offi- 
cial Aspects.  Bto.  Cloth.  Second 
Raised  Ed::: :-.       $2  :: 


THE  MIBACfLOES  ELEMENT  15 
THE  GOSPELS.  Sto.  Cloth.  Sec- 
ond Edit  is*:      S;  j 

THE  TRAINING  of  the  TWELVE; 

or.  Passages  out  of  the  Gospeli. 
Exhibiting   the  twelve  disc 
Jesus    under    discipline    for    the 

eship.    Fourth  Edition,  re- 
zed,     and    improved. 

Cloth.     j2.;o. 


*«•  Aft)  :'  '  t   to  an)  part  of  ihe  lnued 

S:ices  or  Canada,  on  receipt  of  price,  by  the  Publishers, 

A.    C.    ARMSTRONG    &    SON, 
51  East  10th  Street,  New  York. 


THE    HUMILIATION 
OF    CHRIST 


IN    ITS   PHYSICAL,    ETHICAL,    AND 
OFFICIAL   ASPECTS. 


STfje  Silt!)  Srrics  of  tfje   Cunningham  lectures. 


BY 
ALEXANDER   BALMAIN   BRUCE,   D.D. 

PROFESSOR  OF  APOLOGETICS  AND  NEW  TESTAMENT  EXEGESIS, 
FREE   CHURCH   COLLEGE,  GLASGOW. 

Author  of  "The  Parabolic   Teaching  of  Christ,"   "Miraculous  Element 
in  the  Gospels,''''  etc.,  etc. 


SECOND  EDITION  REVISED  AND  ENLARGED. 


3Teu-  XJorfc: 
C.    ARMSTRONG   &  SON, 

51  EAST  10th  STREET. 
1899. 


PREFACE  TO  THE  SECOND  EDITION. 


IN  issuing  a  new  edition  of  The  Humiliation  of  Christ,  I 
desire  gratefully  to  acknowledge  the  appreciative  spirit  in 
which  a  very  imperfect  attempt  to  discuss  a  difficult  subject 
of  great  importance  was  received  by  the  theological  public. 
In  this  edition  scarcely  any  alteration  has  been  made  in  the 
text  of  the  Lectures  which  appeared  in  the  first  edition.. 
But  a  new  Lecture  has  been  added,  the  Fifth  in  the  present 
volume,  on  Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person,. 
which  completes  my  original  design.  In  this  Lecture  I 
have  utilized  the  notes  which  appeared  in  the  Appendix 
of  the  former  edition  on  the  Ideal-Man  Theory  of  Christ's 
Person,  and  on  the  title  "  Son  of  man,"  replacing  them  by 
new  notes  on  other  topics.  I  have  also  in  the  same  Lec- 
ture embodied  the  substance  of  an  article  on  Naturalistic 
Views  of  Christ's  Person,  which  appeared  in  the  British 
and  Foreign  Evangelical  Review  for  January  1879.  For  the 
benefit  of  readers  not  familiar  with  the  Greek  and  German 
languages  I  have  given  English  translations  of  extracts 
from  these  tongues  occurring  in  the  Appendix,  along  with 
the  original.  I  have  not  thought  it  necessary  to  follow  the 
same  course  with  extracts  in  notes  at  the  foot  of  the  page 
in  the  body  of  the  work,  because  the  drift  of  all  such  ex- 
tracts is  given  in  the  text,  so  that  the  English  reader  loses 
nothing,  except  the  power  of  verifying  the  accuracy  of  my 
representations.  It  was  simply  for  the  purpose  of  such 
verification    that  the   extracts    were    given.     I    trust    that 


iv 

these  additions  will  have  the  effect  of  rendering  the  book 
more  useful  and  acceptable.  If  I  have  not  made  more  ex- 
tensive  alterations,  it  is  not  for  want  of  a  deep  sense  of  the 
defects  of  my  performance.  If  there  are  passages  in  the 
volume  which  do  not  satisfy  the  mind  of  the  reader,  they 
probably  still  less  satisfy  the  mind  of  the  writer.  And  yet 
I  am  not  sure  that  if  I  were  to  try  I  could  make  them  bet- 
ter. Let  me  express  the  hope  that,  in  spite  of  defects, 
these  studies  may  promote  growth  in  the  knowledge  of 
our  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,  and  by  their  very  short- 
comings stir  up  others  to  handle  the  high  theme  more 
worthily. 

The  Author. 


CONTENTS. 


LECTURE  I 


CHRISTOLOGICAL  AXIOMS. 


The  Purpose  Explained, 

The  Doctrine  of  the  States  in  Dogmatic  Systems, 

The  Kenotic  School, 

The  Advantages  of  the  Method, 

The  Axioms  difficult  to  fix,   . 

The  Previous  Question, 

Phil.  ii.  5-9  explained, 

The  Axioms  thence  deduced, 

Christ's  Humiliation  in  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 

Doctrine  of  the  Homousia  there  taught, 

The  Humiliation  a  Glorification, 

Two  additional  Axioms,        .  .  . 

Plan  of  the  Course,    .... 


I 
2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

15 
22 

25 
27 

30 
36 
37 


LECTURE  II. 


THE    PATRISTIC    CHRISTOLOGY. 


Formula  of  Chalcedon, 

39 

Apollinarian  Theory  of  Christ's  Pers 
Criticism  of  the  Theory, 
Nestorian  Controversy, 
Cyril  on  the  Kenosis,             . 

on, 

40 

45 
48 

5i 

Theodoret  on  the  Kenosis,    .             , 

54 

Cyril  on  Christ's  Ignorance, 
Eutychianism,            .             . 
Lee's  Letter  to  Flavian, 

55 
60 

63 

The  Dreary  Period  of  Christology, 
John  of  Damascus,     . 

69 
7i 

Thomas  Aquinas, 

New  Ideas  in  the  Summa, 

74 

75 

Christ  both  Co?nprehensor  and  Viatc 

r, 

S3 

VI 


Contents. 


LECTURE  III. 


THE   LUTHERAN   AND    REFORMED   CHRISTOLOGIES. 


Origin  of  the  Controversy, 

Stages  of  the  Controversy, 

The  Christology  of  John  Brentz, 

The  Christology  of  Martin  Chemnitz, 

The  Formula  of  Concord, 

Lutheran  Christology  criticised, 

The  Reformed  Christology,  . 

The  Reformed  Christology  criticised, 

By  the  Logos  through  His  Spirit, 

Double  Consciousness  or  Double  Life  ? 

Realism  of  Reformed  Christology,    . 

Zanchius  and  Hulsius  on  Christ's  Ignorance 

The  Homousia  in  Reformed  Christology, 


83 
84 
86 
96 
105 
107 

i'5 
121 
125 
127 
I3c 
130 
»33 


LECTURE  IV. 


THE   MODERN   KENOTIC  THEORIES. 


Relation  of  these  Theories  to  the  Old  Christologies, 

Zinzendorf  Father  of  Modern  Kenosis, 

Four  Types  distinguished, 

The  Theory  of  Thomasius, 

Theory  of  Gess, 

Theory  of  Ebrard,     . 

Theory  of  Martensen, 

Criticism  of  these  Theories, 


>34 
137 
139 
139 
«45 
153 
160 
164 


LECTURE  V. 


MODERN  HUMANISTIC  THEORIES  OF  CHRIST'S  PERSON. 


Classification  of, 
Thoroughgoing  Naturalism,  . 
Ideal-Man  Theory— Schleiermacher, 
Sentimental  Naturalism — Keim, 
Nondescript  Eclectic  Naturalism—  Haweis, 
Ideal-Man  Theory— Beyschlag, 
Conclusion  of  the  Survey, 


194 
196 
207 
209 
218 
223 
235 


Contents. 


VII 


LECTURE  VI. 


CHRIST  THE  SUBJECT  OF  TEMPTATION  AND  MORAL  DEVELOPMENT. 


Physical  Infirmities  a  Source  of  Temptation, 

Hilary  denied  the  Physical  Infirmities, 

Hilary's  Apologists,  . 

Cause  of  Hilary's  Error, 

Adoptianist  View  of  Christ's  Humanity, 

Menken  and  Irving  taught  same  Views, 

Christ's  relation  to  Disease  and  Death, 

Temptation  and  Sinlessness, 

Potuit  non  and  non  potuit,    . 

Christ's  Moral  Development, 

Christ  perfected,  how  ? 

Christ's  Priesthood,  when  begun  ? 

Is  a  Sinless  Development  possible  ? 


237 
238 
242 

247 
250 
251 

258 
264 
269 
274 
276 
280 
285 


LECTURE  VII. 


THE  HUMILIATION  OF  CHRIST  IN   ITS   OFFICIAL  ASPECT. 


Christ  a  Servant,        ..... 

Christ's  Humiliation  as  an  Apostle,  . 

Socinian  Theory  of  Salvation,  . 

Christ's  Humiliation  as  a  Priest, 

The  Sanctifier  one  with  the  Sanctified, 

Sympathy  a  Source  of  Suffering, 

Sympathy  Theory  of  Atonement, 

Christ,  as  a  Priest,  a  Representative;  as  Victim,  a  Substitute, 

Theory  of  Redemption  by  Sample,   . 

Mystic  and  Legal  Aspects  of  Atonement  compatible, 

Were  Christ's  Sufferings  penal, 

M'Leod  Campbell's  Theory, 

Bushnell's  Latest  Views,        .... 

Manifold  Wisdom  of  God  in  Redemption,    . 

Justice  and  Love  both  satisfied, 

Ritschl  and  Arnold  on  the  Leading  Idea  of  the  Bible, 

Christ's  Fellowship  with  His  Father  uninterrupted, 

Under  Divine  Wrath  during  whole  State  of  Humiliation, 

Did  Christ  suffer  Eternal  Death  ?      . 

Acceptilation  Theory,  .... 

Elements  of  Value  in  the  Atonement, 

Scripture  Representations  of  Christ's  Sufferings, 

Summary  Formula,  ..... 

Philippi's  Equation,  ..... 

Theories  of  Atonement  classified. 


291 
294 
298 
301 
301 
3°4 
305 
309 
3" 
317 
3i8 

319 

322 
326 
328 
332 
335 
337 
34i 
343 
344 
347 
348 
349 
3S2 


Vlll 


Contents. 


APPENDIX. 


Lect.  I.  Note  A, 
Lect.  ii.  Note  a. 
Lect.  III.  Note  A. 

,,         Note  B. 

Note  C. 


)) 

Note  D. 

1 » 

Note  E. 

Lect. 

IV.  Note  A.- 

)> 

Note  B. 

!» 

Note  C. 

)) 

Note  D. 

•  ) 

Note  E.- 

If 

Note  F. 

»» 

Note  G. 

Lect. 

VI.  Note  A. 

>i 

Note  B. 

yt 

Note  C. 

Lect. VII.  Note  A. 

ii 

Note  B. 

»» 

Note  C. 

i> 

Note  D. 

it 

Note  E. 

—On  Phil.  ii.  6-8,         .  .  .  .  .359 

— Extract.-  from  Cyril  on  Christ's  Ignoranee,  .  .  368 
— Connection  between   Lutheran  Christology  ar.d  the 

Sacramentarian  Controversy,  .  .  .  375 
— Tllbingen-Giessen  Controversy   concerning    Krypsis 

and  Kenosis,  .  .  .  .  376 
— Schneckenburger  on  Connection  between  Lutheran 

Christology  and  Modern  Speculative  Christology,  380 

—Schweitzer  on  Reformed  Christology,             .             .  382 

—Reformed  Views  of  the  Impersonality,             .             .  384 

— Kenotic  Literature  belonging1,  to  Thomasian  Type,     .  388 

— Kenotic  Literature  belonging  to  Gessian  Type,            .  396 

— Ebrard's  Prefaces  to  his  Works,  .  .  .  413 
— Ebrard's    Solutions    of    Speculative    Christological 

Problems,  ......  414 

—Kenotic  Literature  belonging  to  Martensen  Type,       .  419 

—The  Christology  of  Zinzendorf,            .             .             .  425 

—Cyril  on  Metamorphic  Kenosis,            .             .             .  429 

—On  the  Temperament  of  Christ,           .             .             .  43a 

—Views  of  Naturalistic  Theologians  on  "the  Flesh,"    .  431 

— Socinus  on  the  Priesthood  of  Christ,    .             .             .  437 

— The  Pauline  Doctrine  of  Atonement,  .             .             .  439 

—Rupert  of  Duytz  on  Christ  as  a  Penitent,  .  .  442 
— Reformed  and  Lutheran  Opinions  on  the  Question, 

Did  Christ  suffer  Spiritual  and  Eternal  Death  ?  .  443 
— St.  Bernard  on  the  Greatness  of  Christ's  Sufferings, 

and  its  Cause,  .....  447 
—Jonathan    Edwards   on   the  Sense   in    which    Christ 

endured  Divine  Wrath,      ....  449 


INDEX. 


45' 


LECTURE  I. 

CHRISTOLOGICAL  AXIOMS. 

I  PURPOSE  in  the  following  lectures  to  employ  the  teaching 
of  Scripture,  concerning  the  humiliation  of  the  Son  of  God, 
as  an  aid  in  the  formation  of  just  views  on  some  aspects  of 
the  doctrine  of  Christ's  person,  experience,  and  work,  and 
as  a  guide  in  the  criticism  of  various  Christological  and 
Soteriological  theories.  The  task  I  enter  on  is  arduous 
and  delicate.  It  is  arduous,  because  it  demands  at  least 
a  tolerable  acquaintance,  at  first  hand  as  far  as  possible, 
with  an  extensive  literature  of  ancient,  modern,  and  recent 
origin,  the  recent  alone  being  sufficiently  ample  to  occupy 
the  leisure  of  a  pastor  for  years.  It  is  delicate,  because 
the  subject,  while  of  vital  interest  in  a  religious  point  of 
view,  is  also  theologically  abstruse.  The  way  of  truth  is 
narrow  here,  and  through  ignorance  or  inadvertence  one 
may  easily  fall  into  error,  while  desiring  to  maintain,  and 
even  honestly  believing  that  he  is  maintaining,  the  catholic 
faith.  It  has,  indeed,  sometimes  been  asserted  that  it  is 
impossible  to  avoid  error  on  the  subject  of  the  person  of 
Christ,  all  known  or  conceivable  theories  oscillating  be- 
tween Ebionitism  and  Doketism.1  This,  it  may  be  hoped, 
is  the  exaggeration  of  persons  not  themselves  believers  in 
the  catholic  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  divinity;  yet  it  is  an 
exaggeration  in  which  there  is  so  much  truth,  that  it  is 
difficult  to  enter  on  a  discussion  of  questions  relating  to 
that  great  theme  without  conscious  fear  and   trembling. 

1  I  venture  to  print  the  words  docetism  and  docetic  with  k  instead  of  c  (doketism, 
doketic),  following  the  example  of  Mr.  Grote,  who  in  his  History  of  Greece  thus 
renders  all  Greek  names  in  which  k  occurs  into  English,  e.g.  Sokrates  instead  of 
Socrates.  One  objection  to  the  spelling  docetism  is,  that  to  ill-informed  minds 
it  may  suggest  a  derivation  from  doceo  instead  of  from  Soxioo.  The  terms  doketism 
and  doketic  apply  to  that  view  of  our  Lord's  person  which  makes  His  human 
aature  and  life  a  mere  appearance. 


2  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  no  one  can  discuss  to  any  purpose 
these  questions  in  a  timid  spirit.  Successful  treatment 
demands  not  only  reverence  and  caution,  but  audacity. 
Without  boldness,  both  in  faith  and  in  thought,  it  is 
impossible  to  rise  to  the  grandeur  of  the  truth  in  Christ, 
as  set  forth  in  Scripture.  Courage  is  required  even  for 
believing  in  the  Incarnation;  and  still  more  for  the  scien- 
tific discussion  thereof.  What  can  one  do,  then,  but 
proceed  with  firm  step,  trusting  to  the  gracious  guidance 
of  God;  expecting,  in  the  words  of  St.  Hilary,1  that  "He 
may  incite  the  beginnings  of  this  trembling  undertaking, 
confirm  them  with  advancing  progress,  and  call  the  writer 
to  fellowship  with  the  spirit  of  prophets  and  apostles,  that 
he  may  understand  their  sayings  in  the  sense  in  which  they 
spoke  them,  and  follow  up  the  right  use  of  words  with  the 
same  conceptions  of  things  "  ? 

The  attempt  I  now  propose  to  make  is  beset  with 
additional  difficulty,  arising  out  of  its  comparative  novelty. 
It  has  not  been  the  practice  of  theological  writers  to  assign 
to  the  category  of  the  states  of  Christ,  or  of  the  state  of 
humiliation  in  particular,  the  dominant  position  which  it 
is  to  occupy  in  the  present  course  of  lectures.  In  most 
dogmatic  systems,  doubtless,  there  is  a  chapter  devoted 
to  the  locus,  De  Static  Christi;  but  in  some  instances 
it  forms  a  meagre  appendix  to  the  doctrines  of  Christ's  per- 
son, or  of  His  work,  which  might  be  dispensed  with;'  in 
other  cases  it  is  a  mere  framework,  within  which  are  included 
in  summary  form  the  leading  facts  of  our  Lord's  history 
as  recorded  in  the  Gospels;3  while  in  a  third  class  of  cases 
it  serves  the  purpose  of  an  apology  or  defence  for  a  foregone 
Christological  conclusion.4     Exclusive  study  of  the  older 

1  De  Trin.  lib.  i.  38.  The  style  of  this  Father  is  so  obscure  that  it  is  scarcely 
warrantable  to  quote  from  him  without  giving  the  original.  His  words  are:  "  Ex- 
pectamus  ergo,  ut  trepide  hujus  coepti  exordia  incites,  et  profectu  accrescente  con- 
firmes,  et  ad  consortium  vel  prophetalis  vel  apostolici  spiritus  voces;  ut  dicta 
eorum  non  alio  quam  ipsi  locuti  sunt  sensu  apprehendamus,  verborumque  propri- 
etates  iisdem  rerum  significationibus  exsequamur." 

2  In  Turretine,  the  chapter  "  De  Duplici  Christi  Statu  "  scarcely  occupies  two 
pages.  Calvin  and  the  older  Reformed  dogmatists  make  no  use  of  the  category 
at  all.  3  So  in  Heidegger,  Corpus  theologiae,  locus  xviii. 

*  So  with  the  Lutheran  divines,  concerning  whom  Strauss  justly  remarks  (Glau- 
benslehre,  vol.  ii.  139),  that  they  used  the  distinction  of  a  twofold  state,  partly  to 


Christological  Axioms. 


"& 


dogmatists  would  tend  to  discourage  the  idea  of  com- 
mencing a  discussion  on  Christology  with  the  doctrine  of 
Exinanition  as  a  mere  conceit;  or,  to  speak  more  correctly, 
it  would  probably  prevent  such  a  thought  from  ever  arising 
in  the  mind.  And  yet  the  discriminating  study  of  these 
very  authors  shows  that  the  truths  relating  to  the  humil- 
iation of  Christ  have  exercised  a  more  extensive  influence 
on  the  doctrines  of  Christ's  person  and  work  than  the  bare 
contents  of  the  locus  De  Statu  Christi  would  lead  one  to 
suppose.  This  is  especially  manifest  in  the  case  of  the- 
ologians belonging  to  the  Reformed  confession,  whose  whole 
views  of  Christ's  person  and  work  have  been  largely  formed 
under  the  influence  of  the  important  principle  of  the  like- 
ness of  Christ's  humanity  in  nature  and  experience  to 
that  of  other  men.1  Instances  are  even  not  wanting  among 
the  Reformed  theologians  of  treatises  on  the  Incarnation, 
commencing  with  a  careful  endeavour  to  fix  the  meaning 
of  the  locus  classicus  bearing  on  the  subject  of  our  Lord's 
humiliation,  that,  viz.,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians.a 
Lutheran  divines,  on  the  other  hand,  constructed  their 
Christology  in  utter  defiance  of  the  doctrine  of  humiliation, 
making  the  Incarnation,  in  its  idea,  consist  in  a  deification 
of  humanity  rather  than  in  a  descent  of  God  into  humanity, 
and  investing  the  human  nature  of  Christ  with  all  divine 
attributes,  even  with  such  metaphysical  ones  as  are  com- 
monly regarded  and  described  as  incommunicable.  But 
even  in  their  case  our  category  took  revenge  for  the  neg- 
lect it  experienced  at  their  hands,  by  compelling  them, 
out  of  regard  to  facts  and  to  the  end  of  the  Incarnation, 
to  take  down  again  their  carefully  constructed  Christ- 
ological  edifice;  the  chapter  on  Exinanition  being  in  effect 
an  attempt  to  bring  the  fantastic  humanity  of  Christ  back 
to  reality  and  nature,  down  from  the  clouds  to  the  solid 

complete,  partly  to  cover,  their  dogma  of  the  communicatio  idiomatum.  In  Ger- 
hard's Loci,  cap.  x.-xiii.  of  locus  iv.  (De  Persona  et  Officio  Christi)  treat  of  the 
(ommunicatio  idiomatum  in  general,  and  in  its  particular  forms;  and  cap.  xiv.  treats 
De  Statu  exinanitionis  et  exaltationis. 

1  Called  in  theological  language  the  Homotisia  {6/noov6ia). 

2  E.g.  Zanchius,  De  Incarnatione  filii  Dei.  Zanchius  was  a  contemporary  of 
the  authors  of  the  Fortnula  Concordiae,  and  wrote  a  defence  of  the  Admoniti* 
Christiana — the  Reformed  reply  to  that  document. 


4  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

earth;   an   attempt  which,   as  we   shall  see,   was  far  from 
being  perfectly  successful. 

While  the  importance  of  keeping  ever  in  view  the  doc- 
trine of  the  states  can  only  be  inferred  from  the  internal 
character  of  the  old  Christologies,  in  spite  of  the  subor- 
dinate place  assigned  thereto  in  the  formal  structure 
of  theological  systems,  it  is,  on  the  other  hand,  a  matter 
of  distinct  consciousness  with  more  recent  writers  on 
Christological  themes.  In  passing  from  the  system- 
builders  of  the  seventeenth  century  to  the  theologians  of 
the  nineteenth,  one  is  emboldened  to  trust  the  instinct 
which  tells  him  that  the  category  of  the  states  is  not  merely 
entitled  to  have  some  sort  of  recognition-  in  theology  out 
of  deference  to  the  prominence  given  to  it  in  Scripture, 
but  is  a  point  of  view  from  which  the  whole  doctrine  con- 
cerning Christ's  person  and  work  may  be  advantageously 
surveyed.  The  method  now  contemplated  has  in  effect 
been  adopted  by  a  whole  school  of  modern  theologians, 
who  have  made  the  idea  of  the  Kenosis  the  basis  of  their 
Christological  inquiries.  The  various  Kenotic  theories 
emanating  from  this  school  are,  as  we  shall  see,  by  no 
means  criticism-proof;  but  their  authors  have  at  least  done 
one  good  service  to  Christology,  by  insisting  that  no 
theory  of  Christ's  Person  can  be  regarded  as  satisfactory 
which  is  not  able  to  assign  some  real  meaning  to  their 
watchword,  in  relation  to  the  divine  side  of  that  Person. 
The  legitimacy  and  the  importance  of  the  proposed  method 
of  inquiry  have  also  been  recognised  by  a  distinguished 
German  theologian  who  was  not  an  adherent  of  the  Ken- 
otic  school,  his  sympathies  being  with  the  old  Reformed 
Christology,  and  whose  opinion  on  such  a  matter  must 
command  the  respect  of  all.  I  allude  to  Schneckenburger, 
author  of  the  instructive  work  entitled,  Comparative  Exhib- 
ition of  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Doctrinal  Systems,1 
one  of  many  valuable  treatises  on  Christological  and  other 

1  Vergleichende  Darstelhing  des  Lutherischen  und  Reformirten  Lehrbegriffs. 
This  work  was  published  atter  the  author's  death  in  1855,  the  MSS.  being  pre- 
pared for  publication  by  Gtider,  a  pupil  of  Schneckenburger's,  who  has  prefixed 
to  the  work  an  interesting  discussion  on  the  question  as  to  the  origin  of  the  differ- 
ence in  the  theological  systems  of  the  two  confessions. 


Christolozical  Axioms. 


%5 


topics  which  owed  their  origin  to  the  ecclesiastical  move- 
ment towards  the  re-union  of  the  two  branches  of  the 
German  Protestant  Church,  long  unhappily  separated  by 
divergent  views  on  the  questions  to  whose  discussion  that 
copious  literature  is  devoted.  Besides  the  work  just 
named,  Schneckenburger  wrote  a  special  treatise  on  the 
two  states  of  Christ,1  designed  as  a  contribution  to  eccle- 
siastical Christology,  in  which  he  endeavoured  to  show 
that  the  doctrines  of  the  states  taught  respectively  by  the 
two  contrasted  confessions  involved  a  corresponding  modi- 
fication of  view  not  only  on  Christ's  person,  but  also  on  the 
nature  of  His  work  on  earth  and  in  heaven,  on  the  justifica- 
tion of  believers,  and  even  on  the  whole  religious  and 
ecclesiastical  life  of  the  two  communions.  It  is  true, 
indeed,  that  the  proof  of  this  position  does  not  settle  the 
question  which  was  the  determining  factor,  the  doctrine  of 
the  states,  or  the  other  doctrines  to  which  it  stands  re- 
lated. It  does,  however,  serve  to  show  this  at  least,  that 
the  related  doctrines  of  the  states  and  of  the  person  being, 
in  mathematical  language,  functions  of  each  other,  it  is  in 
our  option  to  begin  with  either,  and  use  it  as  a  help  in  the 
determination  of  the  other.  Nor  has  the  distinguished 
writer  to  whom  I  have  alluded  left  us  in  uncertainty  as  to 
which  of  the  two  courses  he  deemed  preferable.  Criticis- 
ing the  rectification  of  the  Lutheran  Christology  proposed 
by  Thomasius,  the  founder  of  the  modern  Kenotic  school, 
he  says:  "  The  position  that  the  doctrine  of  the  person 
should  not  be  explained  by  that  of  the  states,  but  inversely, 
because  the  former  is  the  foundation  of  the  latter,  is  one 
which  I  must  contradict,  nay,  which  the  author  himself 
(Thomasius)  virtually  contradicts,  inasmuch  as  he  seeks  to 
shape  the  doctrine  of  the  person,  or  to  improve  it,  by  the 
idea  of  the  states,  especially  by  the  doctrine  of  redemption, 
in  so  far  as  it  falls  within  the  state  of  humiliation."2  I  have 
no  doubt  this  view  is  a  just  one.  Indeed,  it  appears  to  me 
that  the  history  of  Lutheran  Christology  affords  abundant 
evidence  of  the  desirableness  of  commencing  Christological 

1  Zar  Kirchlichen  Christologie:  Die  orthodoxe  Lehre  vom  doppelten  Standi 
Christi  nach  Lutherischer  und  Reformirter  Fassung.  This  work  was  published 
before  the  other,  in  1848.  *   Vom  doppelten  Stande  Christi,  p.  202. 


6  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

inquiries  with  a  careful  endeavour  to  form  a  correct  view  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  states,  and  especially  of  the  Scripture 
teaching  concerning  our  Lord's  humiliation.  Had  the 
Lutheran  theologians  followed  this  course,  it  is  probable 
that  their  peculiar  Christology  would  never  have  come  into 
existence,  and  would  therefore  have  stood  in  no  need  of 
rectification. 

Theologically  legitimate,  the  method  I  propose  is  recom- 
mended by  practical  considerations.  Starting  from  the 
central  idea,  that  the  whole  earthly  history  of  our  Saviour 
is  the  result  and  evolution  of  a  sublime  act  of  self-humilia- 
tion, the  doctrine  of  His  person  becomes  invested  with  a 
high  ethical  interest.  An  advantage  this  not  to  be  over- 
looked in  connection  with  any  theological  truth  involving 
mysteries  perplexing  to  reason.  A  mysterious  doctrine, 
divested  of  moral  interest,  and  allowed  to  assume  the 
aspect  of  a  mere  metaphysical  speculation,  is  a  doctrine 
destined  ere  long  to  be  discarded.  Such,  for  example, 
must  be  the  inevitable  fate  of  the  doctrine  of  an  immanent 
Trinity  when  it  becomes  dissociated  in  men's  minds  from 
practical  religious  interests,  and  degenerates  into  an  ab- 
stract tenet.  The  Trinity,  to  be  secure,  must  be  connected 
in  thought  with  the  Incarnation,  even  as  at  the  first,  when 
it  obtained  for  itself  gradually  a  place  in  the  creed  of  the 
Church  in  connection  with  efforts  to  understand  the  nature 
and  person  of  Christ;1  even  as  the  Incarnation  itself,  in 
turn,  is  secure  only  when  it  is  regarded  ethically  as  a 
revelation  of  divine  grace.  The  effect  of  divorcing  doctrinal 
from  moral  interests  was  fully  seen  in  the  last  century, 
when  the  Trinity  and  kindred  dogmas  were  quietly  dropped 
out  of  the  living  belief  of  the  Church,  though  retained  in 
the  written  creed.  Men  then  said  to  themselves,  "  What 
is  practical,  what  is  of  moral  utility,  is  alone  of  value;  the 
doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  of  the  Deity  of  Christ  are  mere 
theological  mysteries,  therefore  they  may  be  ignored  ! " 
Thus,  as  Dorner,  speaking  of  the  period  in  question,  re- 
marks, "  Many  a  point  which  forms  a  constitutive  element 
of  the  Christian  consciousness  was  treated  as  non-essential, 

1  Vid.  Dorner,  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  L 
p.  49  (Clark's  translation). 


Christological  Axioms.  7 

on  the  ground  of  its  being  unpractical;  and  in  particular, 
essential  portions  of  Christology,  and  of  that  which  is  con- 
nected with  it,  were  set  aside."1  The  same  spirit  of  narrow 
religious  utilitarianism,  of  overweening  value  for  the  practi- 
cal and  the  "verifiable,"  is  abroad  at  the  present  time, 
working  steadily  towards  the  restoration  of  the  state  of 
things  which  prevailed  in  last  century;  and  those  who  are 
concerned  to  counterwork  the  evil  tendency,  must  apply 
their  energies  to  the  task  of  showing  that  discredited  doc- 
trines are  not  the  dry,  metaphysical  dogmas  they  are  taken 
for,  but  rather  a  refuge  from  dry  metaphysics — truths 
which,  however  mysterious,  are  yet  of  vital  ethical  and  re- 
ligious moment;  even  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  itself 
being  the  product  of  an  ethical  view  of  the  divine  nature, 
the  embodiment  of  "  the  only  complete  ethical  idea  of 
God,"2  not  to  be  abandoned  except  at  the  risk  of  falling 
into  either  Pantheism  or  Atheism. 

In  this  point  of  view  it  appears  advisable  to  give  great 
prominence  to  the  self-humiliation  of  Christ  in  connection 
with  Christological  inquiries.  This  method  of  procedure 
procures  for  us  the  advantage  of  starting  with  an  idea  which 
is  dear  to  the  Christian  heart,  with  which  faith  will  not 
willingly  part,  and  for  the  sake  of  which  it  will  readily  ac- 
cept truths  surpassing  human  comprehension.  If  the  great 
thought,  under  whose  guidance  we  advance,  do  not  con- 
duct us  to  new  discoveries,  it  will  at  all  events  redeem  the 
subjects  of  our  study  from  the  blighting  influence  of 
scholasticism. 

In  the  New  Testament,  and  more  especially  in  the  Epis- 
tle of  Paul  to  the  Philippians,  and  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  are  to  be  found  certain  comprehensive  statements 
concerning  the  meaning  and  purpose  of  our  Lord's  appear- 
ance on  earth.     These  statements  our  method  requires  us 

1  Vid.  Dorner,  History  of  the  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  iii. 
p.  28  (Clark's  translation). 

2  This  view  is  strongly  maintained  by  Liibner  in  his  Christologie  (p.  66),  a 
work  of  a  very  speculative  character,  and  Kenotic  in  its  Christology,  but  full  ol 
valuable  and  suggestive  thoughts,  and  abounding  in  interesting  expositions  and 
criticisms  of  contemporary  opinions.  Liebner's  work  is  especially  valuable  for 
the  vigoui  with  which  it  asserts  the  ethical  conception  of  God  over  against  the 
Huutheistic  ai  the  one  hand,  and  the  Deistic  on  the  other. 


8  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

in  the  first  place  to  consider  with  the  view  of  ascertaining 
what  they  imply,  that  we  may  use  the  inferences  they  seem 
to  warrant  as  axioms  in  all  our  subsequent  discussions. 
As  the  truths  we  are  in  quest  of  are  to  serve  the  purpose 
of  axioms,  they  must,  of  course,  be  of  an  elementary  char- 
acter; but  they  are  not  on  that  account  to  be  despised. 
The  axiom,  that  things  which  are  equal  to  the  same  thing 
are  equal  to  one  another,  is  a  very  elementary  truth;  but 
it  is  nevertheless  one  which  you  cannot  neglect  without 
serious  consequences  to  your  system  of  geometry.  In 
theology,  as  in  mathematics,  much  depends  on  the  axioms; 
not  a  few  theological  errors  have  arisen  from  oversight  of 
some  simple  commonplace  truth. 

Our  object  being  merely  to  fix  the  axioms,  it  will  not  be 
necessary  that  we  should  enter  into  any  elaborate,  detailed, 
and  exhaustive  description  of  the  doctrine  of  the  states,  or 
to  attempt  more  than  a  general  survey.  And,  further,  as 
the  main  business  of  Christology  is  to  form  a  true  concep- 
tion of  the  historical  person  Jesus  Christ,  we  may  confine 
our  attention  chiefly  to  the  earlier  of  the  two  states  which 
belongs  to  history  and  falls  within  our  observation,  con- 
cerning which  alone  we  possess  much  information,  and 
around  which  the  human  interest  mainly  revolves.  Of 
the  state  of  exaltation  I  shall  speak  only  occasionally, 
when  a  fitting  opportunity  occurs. 

In  addressing  ourselves,  then,  to  the  task  of  discovering 
Christological  axioms,  we  are  obliged  to  acknowledge  that 
the  fixation  of  these  is  unhappily  no  easy  matter.  Few  of 
the  axioms  are  axiomatic  in  the  sense  of  being  truths 
universally  admitted.  The  diversity  of  opinion  prevailing 
among  interpreters  in  regard  to  the  meaning  of  the  prin- 
cipal passage  bearing  on  the  subject  of  Christ's  humiliation 
— that,  namely,  in  the  second  chapter  of  Paul's  Epistle  to 
the  Philippians — is  enough  to  fill  the  student  with  despair, 
and  to  afflict  him  with  intellectual  paralysis.  In  regard 
to  the  kenosis  spoken  of  there,  for  example,  the  widest 
divergence  of  view  prevails.  Some  make  the  kenosis  scarce- 
ly more  than  a  skenosis, — the  dainty  assumption  by  the 
unchangeable  One  of  a  humanity  which  is  but  a  doketic 
husk,  a  semi-transparent  tent,  wherein  Deity  sojourns,  and 


Christological  Axioms.  9 

through  which  His  glory,  but  slightly  dimmed,  shines  with 
dazzling  brightness.  The  Son  of  God,  remaining  in  all 
respects  what  He  was  before  His  incarnation,  became 
what  He  was  not,  and  so  emptied  Himself.  Others  ascribe 
to  the  kenosis  some  sense  relatively  to  the  divine  nature; 
holding  that  the  incarnation  involved  even  for  that  nature 
a  change  to  some  extent;  that  the  Son  of  God  did  not  re- 
main in  all  respects  as  He  was;  that  at  least  He  underwent 
an  occultation  of  His  glory.  A  third  class  of  expositors 
make  the  kenosis  consist  not  merely  in  a  veiling  of  the 
divine  glory,  but  in  a  depotentiation  of  the  divine  nature,  so 
that  in  the  incarnate  Logos  remained  only  the  bare  essence 
of  Deity  stripped  of  its  metaphysical  attributes  of  omni- 
potence, omniscience,  and  omnipresence.  According  to  a 
fourth  school,  the  kenosis  refers  not  to  the  divine  nature, 
but  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ.  He,  being  in  the  form 
of  God,  shown  to  be  a  divine  man  by  His  miracles  and  by 
His  moral  purity,  emptied  Himself  of  the  cfivine  attributes 
with  which  He,  as  a  man,  was  endowed,  so  far  as  use  at 
least  was  concerned,  and  in  this  self-denial  set  Himself 
forth  as  a  pattern  to  all  Christians,  as  well  as  fitted 
Himself  for  being  the  Redeemer  from  sin. 

It  is  specially  discouraging  to  the  inquirer  after  first  prin- 
ciples to  find,  as  he  soon  does,  that,  as  a  rule,  the  interpre- 
tation of  the  passage  in  question  depends  on  the  inter- 
preter's theological  position.  So  much  is  this  the  case,  that 
one  can  almost  tell  beforehand  what  views  a  particular  ex- 
positor will  take,  provided  his  theological  school  be  once 
ascertained.  On  the  question,  for  example — a  most  impor- 
tant one — respecting  the  proper  subject  of  the  proposition 
beginning  with  the  words,  "Who,  being  in  the  form  of 
God,"1  expositors  take  sides  according  to  their  theological 
bias.  The  old  orthodox  Lutherans  almost  as  a  matter  of 
course  reply,  "  The  subject  concerning  whom  the  affirma- 
tion is  made  is  the  Logos  incarnate  (ensarkos),  the  man 
Christ  Jesus;  the  meaning  of  the  apostle  being,  that  the 
man  Christ  Jesus,  being  in  the  form  of  God,  and  possessing 
as  man  divine  attributes,  did  nevertheless,  while  on  earth, 

>  Phil.  ii.  6. 


io  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

make    little   or  no  use  of  these  attributes;   but    in    effect 
emptied  Himself  of  them,  and  assumed  servile  form,  and 
was  in  fashion  and  habit  as  other  men."    The  old  Reformed 
theologians,  on  the  other  hand,  after  the  example  of  the 
Church  Fathers,  with  equal  unanimity  reply,  "The  subject 
of   whom    Paul    speaks   is    the    Logos   before    incarnation 
(asarkos),  the  Son  of  God  personally  pre-existent  before  He 
became  man;  and  the  sense  is,  that  He,  being  in  the  form 
of  God,  subsisting  as  a  divine  being  before  the  incarnation, 
emptied  Himself,  by  being  made  in  the  likeness  of  man,  and 
taking  upon  Him  the  form  of  a  servant."     Among  modern 
theologians,  the  advocates  of  the  kenosis,  in  the  sense  of  a 
metaphysical  self-exinanition  of  the  Logos,  whether   be- 
longing to  the  Lutheran  or  to  the   Reformed  confession, 
side  with  the  Fathers  and  with  the  old  Reformed  dogma- 
tists.    Those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  reject  the  doctrine 
of  an  immanent   Trinity,  and  along  with  it  the    personal 
pre-existence  of  the  Logos,  naturally  adopt  the  view  of  the 
Lutheran  dogmatists,  and  understand  the  passage  as  re- 
ferring exclusively  to  the  historical  person,  the  man  Christ 
Jesus.     They  can  do  nothing  else  so  long  as  they  claim  to 
have  Biblical  support  for  their  theological  and  Christolog- 
ical  systems.     They  come  to  this  text  with  a  firm  convic- 
tion that  it  cannot  possibly  contain  any  reference  to  a  free, 
conscious  act  of  the  pre-existent  Logos.     In  arguing  with 
expositors  of  this  school  there  is  therefore  a  previous  ques- 
tion to  be  settled:   Is  the  Church  doctrine  of  the  Trinity 
scriptural,  or  is  it  not  ? 

This  is,  indeed,  the  previous  question  for  all  Christologi- 
cal  theories.  Every  one  who  would  form  for  himself  a  con- 
ception of  the  person  of  Christ  must  first  determine  his 
idea  of  God,  and  then  bring  that  idea  to  his  Christological 
task  as  one  of  its  determining  factors.  Accordingly,  in  com- 
plete treatises  on  the  person  and  work  of  Christ,  like  that 
of  Thomasius,1  we  find  the  Christian  idea  of  God  and  the 
doctrine  of  the  Trinity  discussed  under  the  head  of  Christ- 
ological presuppositions.  In  the  present  course  of  lectures, 
such  a  discussion  would   of  course  be  altogether  out    of 

1  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk.  Darstelhtng  der  Evangelisch-Lutfur 
itchen  Dogmatik  vom  Mittelpunkte  der  Christologie  aus. 


Christological  Axioms.  1 1 

place;  but  I  may  here  take  occasion  to  express  my  con- 
viction, that  what  I  have  called  the  previous  question  of 
Christology,  is  destined  to  become  the  question  of  the  day 
in  this  country,  as  it  has  been  for  some  time  past  in  Ger- 
many. What  is  God  ?  Is  personality,  involving  self-con- 
sciousness and  self-determination,  predicable  of  the  Divine 
Being;  or  is  He,  or  rather  it,  merely  the  unknown  ai.c 
unknowable  substratum  of  all  phenomena,1  the  impersonal 
immanent  spirit  of  nature,  the  unconscious  moral  order  of 
the  world  in  which  the  idea  of  the  good  somehow  and  to 
some  extent  realizes  itself,3  the  absolute  Idea  become  An- 
other in  physical  nature,  and  returning  to  itself  and  attain- 
ing to  personality  in  man;  becoming  incarnate  not  in  an 
individual  man,  but  in  the  human  race  at  large  ?3 — such, 
according  to  all  present  indications,  are  the  momentous 
questions  on  which  the  thoughts  of  men  are  about  to  be 
concentrated.  And  if  one  may  venture  to  predict  the  re- 
sult of  the  great  debate,  it  will  probably  be  to  show  that 
between  Pantheism,  under  one  or  other  of  its  forms,  mate- 
rialistic or  idealistic,  and  the  Christian  doctrine  of  God,  in 
which  the  ethical  predominates,  there  is  no  tenable  posi- 
tion; in  the  words  of  a  German  theologian  whom  I  have 
already  had  occasion  to  quote:  "  That  the  whole  of  specu- 
lative theology  stands  in  suspense  between  the  pure  abstract 
One,  general  Being,  lv  nod  ndv,  in  which  God  and  world 
alike  go  down,  and  the  ethical  hypostatical  Trinity,  or  be- 
tween the  boldest,  emptiest,  hardest  Pantheism,  and  the 
completed  ethical  personalism  of  Christianity;  all  panthe- 
istic and  theistic  modes,  from  Spinoza  to  the  most  devel- 
oped forms  of  modern  Theism,  being  only  transition  and 
oscillation  which  cannot  abide."  4 

The  influence  of  theological  bias  on  the  exegesis  of  the 
locus  classictis  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians  being 
apparent  in  the  case    of  so  many  theologians  of  highest 

1  Vid.  Herbert  Spencer,  Synthetic  Philosophy,  First  Principles,  part  i. 

"  Vid.  Strauss,  Die  christliche  Glaubenslehre,  i.  392,  and  Mr.  Matthew  Arnold, 
Literature  and  Dogma.  Arnold  defines  God  as  a  Power  that  makes  for  righteous- 
ness;  the  power  being  impersonal,  and,  so  to  speak,  neuter.  Arnold's  Power 
making  for  righteousness  is  the  same  with  Fichte's  moral  order  of  the  world,  r» 
garded  simply  as  an  ultimate  fact,  not  as  the  result  of  a  personal  Providence 

3  So  Hegel.  <  Liebner,  Ckristologie,  pp.  266-7. 


12  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

reputation,  it  would  be  intolerable  conceit  in  any  man  to 
claim  exemption  therefrom.  I,  for  my  part,  have  no  desire 
to  put  forth  such  a  claim.  On  the  contrary,  I  avow  my 
wish  to  arrive  at  a  particular  conclusion  with  respect  to  the 
interpretation  of  the  passage;  one,  viz.,  which  should  assign 
a  reality  to  the  idea  of  a  Being  in  the  form  of  God  by  a  free 
act  of  gracious  condescension  becoming  man.  I  am  de- 
sirous to  have  ground  for  believing  that  the  apostle  speaks 
here  not  only  of  the  exemplary  humility  of  the  man  Jesus, 
but  of  the  more  wonderful,  sublime  self-humiliation  of  the 
pre-existent  personal  Son  of  God.  For  then  I  should  have 
Scripture  warrant  for  believing  that  moral  heroism  has  a 
place  within  the  sphere  of  the  divine  nature,  and  that  love 
is  a  reality  for  God  as  well  as  for  man.  I  do  not  wish,  if  I 
can  help  it,  to  worship  an  unknown  or  unknowable  God 
called  the  Absolute,  concerning  whom  or  which  all  Bible 
representations  are  mere  make-believe,  mere  anthropomor- 
phism; statements  expressive  not  of  absolute  truth,  but 
simply  of  what  it  is  well  that  we  should  think  and  feel  con- 
cerning God.  I  am  not  disposed  to  subject  my  idea  of  God 
to  the  category  of  the  Absolute,  which,  like  Pharaoh's  lean 
kine,  devours  all  other  attributes,  even  for  the  sake  of 
the  most  tempting  apologetic  advantages  which  that  cate- 
gory may  seem  to  offer.  A  poor  refuge  truly  from  unbelief 
is  the  category  of  the  Absolute  !  "  We  know  not  God  in 
Himself,"  says  the  Christian  apologist,1  "therefore  we  can 
never  know  that  what  the  Bible  says  of  Him  is  false,  and  ma}' 
rationally  receive  it  as  true."  "  We  know  not  God,"  rejoins 
the  agnostic  man  of  science;2  "  and  the  more  logical  infer- 
ence is,  that  all  affirmations  concerning  Him  in  the  Bible 
or  elsewhere  are  incompetent;  the  Bible  God  is  an  eidolon 
whose  worship  is  only  excusable  because  it  is  wholesome 
in  tendency."  "  God,  strictly  speaking,  has  no  attributes, 
but  is  mere  and  simplest  essence,  which  admits  of  no  real 
difference,  nor  any  composition  either  of  things  or  of  modes," 
declares  the  old  orthodox  dogmatist.*  "  So  be  it,"  replies 
a  formidable  modern  opponent  of  orthodoxy,  Dr.  Baur  of 

1    Jld.  Mansel,  Limits  of  Religious  Thought. 

"   Vid.  Herbert  Spencer,  First  Principles. 

*  Quenstedt,  quoted  by  Baur,  Lehre  von  der  Drcieinigkeit,  vol.  iii.  p.  340. 


Christological  Axioms.  13 

Tubingen,1  "  I  agree  with  you,  but  that  proposition  amounts 
to  substantial  Pantheism;  "  and  the  theological  system  of 
Schleiermacher  shows  that  Baur  is  right.     If,  therefore,  we 
wish  to  believe  with  our  hearts  in  the  Bible,  we  must  hold 
fast  by  the  ethical  conception  of  God;  and  whatever  dis- 
putes arise  between  us  and  others  holding  in  common  with 
us    the  same  general  idea  of  the  Divine  Being,  we  must 
settle  on  ethical  grounds,  not  fleeing  for  refuge  from  per- 
plexities to  an  idea  of  God  which  removes  the  very  founda- 
tions of  faith,  and  becoming  in  effect  Pantheists  or  Atheists 
in  order  that  we  may  not  be  Socinians.     It  is  in  vain  to 
think  of  saving  the  catholic  faith  on  the  principles  of  theo- 
logical nescience;  foolish  to  seek  escape  from  moral  diffi- 
culties by  means  of  sceptical  metaphysics.     As  Maurice,  in 
his  reply  to  Mansel,  well  says:   "Such  an  apology  for  the 
faith  costs  too  much."  2     It  saves  such  doctrines  as  those 
of  the  Trinity  and  the  Incarnation  and  the  Atonement  at 
the  cost  of  all  the  moral  interest  which  properly  belongs  to 
them,  and  converts  them  into  mere  mysteries,  which  must 
be  received  because  we  are  not  able  to  refute  them;  but 
which,  in  spite  of  all  the  apologist's  skill,  will  not  be  re- 
ceived, but  will  meet  the  fate  of  all  mere  mysteries  devoid 
of  moral  interest, — that  of  being  neglected,  or  even  ridi- 
culed, as  they  have  been  lately  by  the  author  of  Literature 
and  Dogma;  ridiculed  not  in  mere  wantonness,  though  that 
is  not  wanting,  but  in  the  interest  of  a  practical  ethical  use 
of  the  Bible  as  a  book  not  intended  to  propound  idle  theo- 
logical puzzles,  but  to  lead  men  into  the  way  of  right  conduct. 
Holding  such  views,  desirous  to  believe  in  a  God  abso- 
lutely full  of  moral  contents,  knowable  on  the  ethical  side 
of  His  nature  truly  though  not  perfectly,  like  man  in  that 
which  most  exalts  human  nature, — loving  with  a  love  like 
that  of  good  men, — only  incomparably  grander,  rising  in 
point  of  magnanimity  high  above  human  love,  as  heaven  is 
high  above  the  earth,3  passing  knowledge  in  dimensions,  but 
perfectly  comprehensible  in  nature,4  I  am  predisposed  to 

1  Baur,  Lehre  von  der  Dreieinigkeit,  vol.  iii.  pp.  339-352. 

*  Maurice,  What  is  Revelation?  p.  131.  3  Isa.  Iv.  8,  9. 

*  Eph.  iii.  18,  19.     There  is  an  unknowableness  of  God  taught  here,  but  it  is  a 
very  different  one  from  that  asserted  by  the  philosophy  of  the  Absolute.     It  is  the 


14  TJie  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

agree  with  those  who  find  in  the  famous  text  from  the 
Epistle  to  the  Philippians  a  clear  reference  to  an  act  of  con- 
descension on  the  part  of  the  pre-existent  Son  of  God,  in 
virtue  of  which  He  became  man.  Schleiermacher  naively 
objects  to  the  idea  of  humiliation  as  applied  to  the  earthly 
state  of  Christ,  because  it  implies  a  previous  higher  state 
from  which  the  self-humbled  One  descended, — a  view 
which  he  regards  as  at  once  destructive  of  the  unity  of 
Christ's  person,  and  incompatible  with  the  nature  of  God, 
the  absolutely  Highest  and  Eternal.1  What  Schleier- 
macher objects  to  in  the  idea  of  humiliation,  appears  tome 
its  chief  recommendation;  and  I  agree  with  Martensen  in 
thinking  it  a  capital  defect  in  Schleiermacher's  Christology 
that  it  excludes  the  idea  of  the  pre-existence  of  the  Son, 
and  along  with  it,  the  idea  of  a  condescending  revelation 
of  love  on  the  part  of  the  eternal  Logos.2  I  refuse  to  accept 
an  idea  of  God  which  makes  such  condescension  impossible 
or  meaningless;  nor  am  I  able  to  regard  that  as  the  abso- 
lutely Highest  which  cannot  stoop  down  from  its  altitude. 
The  glory  of  God  consists  not  simply  in  being  high,  but 
in  that  He,  the  highest  and  greatest,  can  humble  Himself 
in  love  to  be  the  lowest  and  least.  The  moral,  not  the 
metaphysical,  is  the  highest,  if  not  the  distinctive,  in  the 
Divine  Being. 

While  making  this  frank — it  may  even  appear  ostenta- 
tious— avowal  of  theological  bias,  and  confessing  that  the 
Scriptures  would  contain  for  me  no  revelation  of  God,  did 
they  not  teach  a  doctrine  of  divine  grace  capable  of  taking 
practical  historical  shape  in  an  Incarnation,  I  do  not  admit 
that  it  is  a  far-fetched    or   strained    interpretation  which 

unknowableness  as  to  dimensions  of  a  love  believed  to  be  most  real,  and  in  its 
nature  comprehensible.  It  is  the  same  kind  of  unknowableness  which  is  spoken  oi 
in  Job.  xi.  7.  It  is  not  a  question  whether  God  can  be  known  at  all,  but  a  ques- 
tion of  finding  out  the  Almighty  unto  perfection — of  taking  the  measure  of  the 
Divine  Being.  The  Scripture  doctrine  of  divine  unknowableness  is  the  very  op- 
posite extreme  to  that  of  the  philosophers.  "Thy  mercy,  O  Lord,  is  in  the 
heavens,  Thy  truth  reacheth  unto  the  clouds:  Thy  righteousness  is  like  the  great 
mountains^  Thy  judgments  are  a  great  deep,"  say  the  Scriptures.  "  Mercy,  truth, 
righteousness,  judgment,  are  words  which  convey  no  absolutely  true  meaning  wilt 
reference  to  the  Divine  Being,"  says  the  philosophy  of  the  Absolute. 

1  Glaubenslekre,  ii.  p.  159. 

2  Die  Christliche  Dogmatik,  p.  252. 


Christological  Axioms.  i5 

brings  such  a  doctrine  out  of  Paul's  words  in  his  Epistle  to 
the  Philippians.  That  interpretation  appears  to  me  the 
one  which  would  naturally  occur  to  the  mind  of  any  per- 
son coming  to  the  passage,  bent  solely  on  ascertaining  its 
meaning,  without  reference  to  his  own  theological  opinions. 
It  may  be  regarded  as  a  presumption  in  favour  of  this  view 
when  writers  like  Schleiermacher  and  Strauss,  neither  of 
them  a  believer  in  the  doctrine  of  a  personally  pre-existent 
Logos,  nevertheless  admit  that  it  is  at  least  by  implication 
taught  in  the  passage.  The  former  author,  indeed,  seeks 
to  deprive  the  statements  contained  therein  of  all  theo- 
logical value,  by  representing  them  as  of  an  "ascetic"  and 
"  rhetorical  "  character;  the  expressions  not  being  intended 
to  be  "  didactically  fixed,"  1 — a  convenient  method  of  get- 
ting rid  of  unacceptable  theological  dogmas,  which  may  be 
applied  to  any  extent,  and  which,  if  applied  to  Paul's 
Epistles,  would  render  it  difficult  to  extract  any  theological 
inferences  therefrom,  inasmuch  as  nearly  all  the  doctrinal 
statements  they  contain  arise  out  of  a  practical  occasion, 
and  are  intended  to  serve  a  hortatory  purpose.  Strauss, 
on  the  other  hand,  making  no  pretence  of  adhering  to 
Scripture  in  his  theological  views,  frankly  acknowledges 
that,  according  to  the  doctrine  of  Paul  in  this  place,  Christ 
is  One  who,  before  His  incarnation,  lived  in  a  divine  glory, 
to  which,  after  His  freely  assumed  state  of  humiliation  was 
over,  He  returned.2 

It  is  now  time  that  I  should  explain  the  sense  in  which 
I  understand  the  passage  referred  to,  which  I  shall  do  very 
briefly,  relegating  critical  details  to  another  place.3  The 
subject  spoken  about  is  the  historical  person  Jesus  Christ, 
conceived  of,  however,  as  having  previously  existed  before 
He  entered  into  history,  and  as  in  His  pre-existent  state, 
supplying  material  fitted  to  serve  the  hortatory  purpose  the 

1  Glaubenslehre,  ii.  p.  161.  Schleiermacher's  admission  is  not  hearty;  for  while 
the  manner  in  which  he  explains  away  the  apparent  meaning  of  the  passage  implies 
such  an  admission  as  I  have  ascribed  to  him,  he  remarks  that  the  way  in  which 
Paul  here  sets  forth  Christ  as  an  example,  is  quite  compatible  with  the  idea  that 
he  has  in  view  merely  the  appearance  of  lowliness  in  the  life  as  well  as  in  Um 
death. 

2  Die  Christliche  Glaubenslehre,  i.  420. 
8  See  Appendix,  Note  A. 


1 6  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

apostle  has  in  view.  Paul  desires  to  set  before  the  Church 
in  Philippi  the  mind  of  Christ  in  opposition  to  the  mind  of 
self-seekers,  and  he  includes  the  pre-existence  in  his  rep- 
resentation, because  the  mind  he  means  to  illustrate  was 
active  therein,  and  could  not  be  exhibited  in  all  its  sub- 
limity if  the  view  were  restricted  to  the  earthly  career  of 
the  Great  Exemplar  of  self-renunciation.  It  has  been 
objected,  that  a  reference  to  the  pre-existence  is  beside 
the  scope  of  the  apostle,  his  aim  being-  to  induce  proud, 
self-asserting  Christians  to  imitate  Christ  in  all  respects 
in  which  it  was  possible  for  them  to  become  like  Him, 
while  in  respect  of  the  Incarnation  He  is  inimitable.1  The 
objection  is  a  very  superficial  one.  It  is  true  that  the  act 
by  which  the  Son  of  God  became  man  is  inimitable;  but 
the  mind  which  moved  Him  to  perform  that  act  is  not 
inimitable;  and  it  is  the  mind  or  moral  disposition  of  Christ, 
revealed  both  in  imitable  and  inimitable  acts,  which  is  the 
subject  of  commendation.  Therefore,  though  the  great 
drama  of  self-humiliation  enacted  by  our  Saviour  on  this 
earth  be  the  main  theme  of  Christian  contemplation,  yet 
is  a  glimpse  into  the  mind  of  the  pre-existent  Son  of  God 
a  fitting  prelude  to  that  drama,  tending  to  make  it  in  its 
whole  course  more  impressive,  and  to  heighten  desire  in 
the  spectators  to  have  the  same  mind  dwelling  in  them- 
selves, leading  them  to  perform  on  a  humbler  scale  similar 
acts  of  self-denial.  Another  argument  against  the  refer- 
ence to  a  pre-existent  state  has  been  drawn  from  the 
historical  name  given  to  the  subject  of  the  proposition,  Jesus 
Christ.  But  this  argument  is  sufficiently  met  by  the  re- 
mark, that  the  same  method  of  naming  the  subject  is 
employed  by  Paul  in  other  passages  where  a  pre-existence 

1  Gerhard's  Loci  Theologici,  locus  iv.  cap.  xiv.  "  De  Statu  exinanitionis  et 
exaltalionis."  Gerhard  says:  "  Scopus  apostoli  est,  quod  velit  Philippenses  hortari 
ad  humilitatem  intuitu  in  Christi  exeraplum  facto.  Ergo  praesentis,  non  futuri 
temporis,  exemplum  illis  exhibet.  Proponit  eis  imitandum  Christi  exemplum  tan- 
quam  vitae  regulam.  Ergo  considerat  facta  Christi  quae  in  oculos  incurrunt,  in 
quorum  numero  non  est  incarnatio.  In  eo  apostolus  jubet  Philippenses  imitari 
Christum,  in  quo  similes  ipsi  nondum  erant,  sed  similes  fieri  poterant  et  debebant. 
Atqui  erant  illi  jam  ante  veri  homines,  sed  inflati  ac  superbi:  Christum  igitur  eos 
imitari,  et  humilitati  studere,  jubet,  incarnatiore  vem  n^  mo  Filio  Dei  similis  fieri 
potest"  (§  cexciv.). 


Christological  Axioms.  17 

of  some  sort,  real  or  ideal,  personal  or  impersonal,  is  un 
deniably  implied.1 

Of  Him  whose  mind  is  commended  as  worthy  of  imita- 
tion, the  apostle  predicates  two  acts  through  which  that 
mind  was  revealed:  First,  an  act  of  self-emptying,  in  virtue 
of  which  He  became  man;  then  a  continuous  act  or  habit 
of  self-humiliation  on  the  part  of  the  incarnate  One,  which 
culminated  in  the  endurance  of  death  on  the  cross.  'Eawdv 
inevGodev, — He  emptied  Himself, — that  was  the  first  great 
act  by  which  the  mind  of  the  Son  of  God  was  revealed. 
Wherein  did  this  hsvgoo'is  consist  ?  what  did  it  imply  ?  The 
apostle  gives  a  twofold  answer;  one  having  reference  to 
the  pre-existent  state,  the  other  to  the  sphere  of  Christ's 
human  history.  With  reference  to  the  former,  the  kenosis 
signified  a  firm  determination  not  to  hold  fast  and  selfishly 
cling  to  equality  of  state  with  God.  Thus  I  understand 
the  words  ovh  apitayuov  rjyr/6a.To  to  eivai  16a.  ©sc£.  The  ren- 
dering in  our  English  version  ("  thought  it  not  robbery  to 
be  equal  with  God"),  which  follows  patristic  (Latin)  exe- 
getical  tradition,  is  theologically  true,  but  unsuited  to  the 
connection  of  thought,  and  to  the  grammatical  construc- 
tion of  the  sentence.  The  apostle's  purpose  is  not  formally 
to  teach  that  Christ  was  truly  God,  so  that  it  was  not  ar- 
rogance on  His  part  to  claim  equality  of  nature  with  God; 
but  rather  to  teach  that  He  being  God  did  not  make  a 
point  of  retaining  the  advantages  connected  with  the  divine 
state  of  being.  Hence  he  merely  mentions  Christ's  divinity 
participially  by  way  of  preface  in  the  first  clause  of  the  sen- 
tence (5s  ev  Mopcpy  ©sou  vTtdpxa>v>  wno  being,  or  subsisting, 
in  the  form  of  God),  and  then  hastens  on  to  speak  of  the 
mind  that  animated  Him  who  was  in  the  form  of  God,  as  a 
mind  so  different  from  that  of  those  who  esteem  and  desire 
to  exalt  themselves  above  others,  that  He  was  willing  to 
part  with  equality  in  condition  with  God.  This  part  of  the 
sentence,  beginning  with  ovh  dpnay jiiov,  cannot,  as  Alford 
justly  remarks,  "be  a  mere  secondary  one,  conveying  an 

1  1  Cor.  x.  4-9;  Col.  i.  14,  15.  The  use  of  the  historical  name  in  reference  tc 
the  pre-existent  Logos  in  these  and  other  passages  is  admitted  by  Beyschlag  (DU 
Ckristologie  des  neuen  Testaments,  p.  240),  who  does  not  admit  a  personal,  but 
only  an  ideal  pre-existence  of  the  Logos. 


1 8  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

additional  detail  of  Christ's  majesty  in  His  pre-existent 
state,  but  must  carry  the  whole  weight  of  the  negation  of 
selfishness  on  His  part;"1  unless  we  can  suppose  the  writer 
guilty  of  an  irrelevancy  tending  to  weaken  the  force  of  his 
appeal  by  introducing  one  idea  when  another  is  naturally 
expected.  But  further,  the  grammatical  construction  pre- 
cludes such  a  rendering  of  this  clause  as  is  given  in  the 
English  version.  In  the  text,  the  idea  expressed  by  dpnay- 
\})6azo,  etc.,  is  opposed  to  the  idea  expressed  by  the 
words  Eavrov  lxevoo6ev,  the  connecting  particle  being  dXXd 
(but),  so  that  in  the  former  clause  is  stated  negatively  what 
in  the  latter  is  stated  positively.  He  did  not  practise 
dpitayuov  with  reference  to  equality  with  God;  but,  on  the 
contrary,  emptied  Himself.  The  patristic  rendering,  re- 
tained in  the  English  version,  requires  the  connecting  par- 
ticle to  be  a  word  signifying  "nevertheless;"  not  dXXd, 
but  a  word  equivalent  to  the  Attic  phrase  ov  uqv  dXXd.  * 
Beyond  all  doubt,  therefore,  whatever  r6  eivai  i'da  0ec3  may 
mean,  it  points  to  something  which  both  the  connection  of 
thought  and  the  grammatical  structure  of  the  sentence 
require  us  to  regard  the  Son  of  God  as  willing  to  give  up. 
Looking  now  at  the  connection  between  the  prefatory 
participial  clause  and  the  one  we  have  just  been  consider- 
ing, we  must  regard  "  to  be  equal  with  God  "  as  exegetical 
of  "being  in  the  form  of  God."  Those  interpreters  who 
take  the  whole  passage  as  having  exclusive  reference  to 
the  earthly  history  of  Christ,  distinguish  the  two;  regard- 
ing the  form  of  God  as  something  possessed  by  Christ  even 
in  the  state  of  humiliation,  and  equality  with  God  as  a  thing 
to  be  attained  in  the  state  of  exaltation,  a  privilege  for 
which  the  Lowly  One  was  content  patiently  to  wait,  ab- 
staining from  prematurely  clutching  at  it,  by  making  an 
unseasonable  parade  of  His  divine  dignity.  But  the  subor- 
dinate position  assigned  to  the  phrase  r6  sivai  i'6a  QecS  in  the 

1  Alford  in  loco. 

*  This  is  frankly  acknowledged  by  Zanchius:  "ilia  vox  dXXd,"  he  says,  "ad 
versativa  cum  sit  particula,  et  in  praecedenti  versu  non  ita  liquido  apparet  cuinarn 
verbo  adversetur,  reddit  constructionem  utcunque  difficilem.  Syriac.  faciliorem 
facit  cum  habeat  ella,  id  est  nihilocninus." — De  filii  Dei  Incarnatiotie,  lib.  L 
cap.  ii.  7. 


Christological  Axio7ns.  iq 

clause  to  which  it  belongs,  it  being  placed  at  the  end,  while 
ovx  dpnayixov  ?)y?')6aro  stands  in  the  forefront  to  catch  the 
reader's  eye,  as  the  principal  matter,  shows  that  it  simply 
repeats  the  idea  already  expressed  by  the  words  kv  uopcp^ 
Osov  vitdpxCsDV- 

The  two  phrases  being  equivalent,  it  follows  that  no 
meaning  can  be  assigned  to  either  which  would  involve  an 
inadmissible  sense  for  the  other.  By  this  rule  we  are  pre- 
cluded from  understanding  by  the  form  of  God  the  divine 
essence  or  nature;  for  such  an  interpretation  would  oblige 
us  to  find  in  the  second  clause  the  idea  that  the  Son  of  God 
in  a  spirit  of  self-renunciation  parted  with  His  divinity. 
We  must  decline  here  to  follow  in  the  footsteps  of  the  Fa- 
thers, who,  with  the  exception  of  Hilary,1  invariably  took 
form  as  synonymous  with  nature;  possibly  misled  by  a  too 
absorbing  desire  to  find  in  the  passage  a  clear  undeniable 
assertion  of  our  Lord's  proper  divinity, — a  desire  which  could 
have  been  gratified  without  having  recourse  to  misinterpre- 
tation; inasmuch  as  the  implied  assertion  of  that  truth  which 
the  words  of  the  apostle,  rightly  interpreted,  really  do  con- 
tain, is  even  more  forcible  than  a  formal  didactic  statement 
would  have  been.  Mopcp?j  does  not  mean  the  same  thing  as 
ovdia  or  <pv6is.  Even  the  old  Reformed  theologian  Zan- 
chius,  while  following  the  patristic  tradition  in  the  inter- 
pretation of  the  word,  acknowledges  the  distinguishableness 
of  the  terms,  and  quotes  with  approbation  a  passage  from 
a  contemporary,  Danaeus,  in  which  they  are  very  clearly 
distinguished,  ovdia  being  defined  as  denoting  the  naked 
essence,  cpvdiz  as  the  ovdia  clothed  with  its  essential  prop- 
erties, and  nopcprj  as  adding  to  the  essential  and  natural 
properties  of  the  essence,  other  accidents  which  follow  the 
true  nature  of  a  thing,  and  by  which,  as  features  and  colours, 
ovdia  and  <pv6\%  are  shaped  and  depicted.2  Thus  understood, 
uopcpr)  presupposes  ovdia  and   <pvdis,  and  yet   is  separable 

1  Hilary  varied  in  his  interpretation,  sometimes  identifying,  sometimes  distin- 
guishing, /.topcpr/  and  cpvdiS.     See  Appendix,  Note  A. 

2  Zanchius,  De filii  Incarnatione,  lib.  i.  cap.  xi. :  "Ovdia  proprie  significat 
nudam  essentiam  .  .  .  <pvdiS  ipsi  essentiae  addit  proprietates  essentiales  et  natu- 
rales:  juopq>t}  addit  essentiae  et  proprietatibus  essentialibus  et  naturalibus  alia  etiam 
accidentia  quae  veram  rei  naturam  sequuntur,  et  quibus,  quasi  lineamentis  et  col- 
oribus  ovdia  et  <pvdtS  conformantur  atque  depinguntur." 


20  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

from  them;  it  cannot  exist  without  them,  but  they  c*j,  wX- 
ist  without  it.     The  Son  of  God,  subsisting  in  the  form  of 
I,  must  have  possessed  divine  ov6ia  and  divine  <pv6t%\  but 
it   is    conceivable  that,  retaining  the   ov6ia  and  the  <pv6i$, 
He  might  part  with  the  uopq^.     And  in  point  of  fact  such 
a  parting  for  a  season  with  the  nop<pfi  seems  clearly  taught 
in  this  place.     The  apostle  conceives  of  the  Incarnation  as 
an  exchange  of  divine  form  for  the  human  form  of  exist- 
ence.    In   what   the   thing  parted  with  precisely  consists, 
and  what  the  dogmatic  import  of  the  exchange  may  be, 
are  points  open  to  debate.     As  to  the  former,  we  must  be 
content,  meantime,  with  the  general  statement   that  the 
thing  renounced  was  not  divine  essence,  or  anything  be- 
longing essentially  to  the  divine  nature.     The  Logos  re- 
mained what  He  was  in  these  respects  when  He  became 
what  lie  was  not;  equal  to  God  in  nature  (l'6o?  GecS),  while 
ceasing  for  a  season  to  be  His  equal  in  state  {loa  Seti).    As 
to  the  latter,  the  exchange  of  forms  may,  as  Martensen 
and  others  hold,  be  compatible  with  the  theory  of  a  double 
lift;  not  an  absolute  exchange,  but  one  relative  to  the  incar- 
nate life  of  the  Logos.    All  that  can  be  confidently  affirmed 
is  that  the  apostle  does  conceive  the  Incarnation  under  the 
aspect  of  an  exchange  of  a  divine  form  for  a  human  form 
of  being;  so  that,  as  expositors,  we   are    not  entitled    to 
interpret  the  words,  "being  in  the  form  of  God,"  as  mean- 
ing "  continuing  to  subsist  in  divine  form." 

The  kenosis,  being  first  represented  negatively,  with  ref- 
erence to  the  pre-existent  state,  as  a  free  determination  not 
to  hold  fast  equality  with  God,  is  next  represented  posi- 
tively, with  reference  to  the  historical  existence,  as  consist- 
ing in  the  assumption  of  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  in  being 
made  in  the  likeness  of  man.  Mopcpr/v  SovXov  Xa/ioov,  kv  6/iot- 
aouari  arBpaSicooY  yerouevoi  ("  taking  the  form  of  a  servant, 
being  made  in  the  likeness  of  men").  The  ethical  quality 
of  Christ's  human  life  is  described  in  the  former  of  these 
two  clauses;  the  fact  of  His  becoming  man  is  referred  to 
in  the  latter.  The  first  clause  declares  the  end  of  the  In- 
carnation, the  second  sets  forth  the  Incarnation  itself  as 
the  means  to  that  end.  The  Son  of  God  took  human  na- 
ture that  He  might,  as  a  man,  live  in  the  form  of  a  servant 


Christological  Axioms.  21 

The  servant-form  is  thus  not  to  be  identified  with  the  human 
nature,  any  more  than  the  form  of  God  is  to  be  identified 
with  the  divine  nature.  The  human  nature  was  simply  the 
condition  under  which  it  was  possible  to  bear  the  form  of 
a  servant,  even  as  the  divine  nature  is  the  presupposition 
of  existence  in  the  form  of  God.  The  order  in  which  the 
two  clauses  are  arranged  is  rhetorical  rather  than  logical. 
That  is  placed  first  which  is  of  most  importance  to  the 
writer's  purpose,  as  the  eulogist  of  the  mind  which  was  in 
Christ;  the  mere  fact  of  the  Incarnation  is  spoken  of  subor- 
dinate^, and  in  the  second  place,  simply  to  explain  in  what 
circumstances  Christ  took  the  form  of  a  servant,  viz.  in 
human  nature.  In  this  connection  it  is  not  unworthy  of 
remark  that  the  participle  in  the  first  clause  is  active,  while 
that  in  the  second  clause  is  passive.  Christ  was  made 
man,  but  He  took  servile  form.  His  end  in  becoming  man 
was  that  He  might  be  able  to  wear  that  form  of  existence 
which  is  at  the  greatest  possible  distance  from,  and  presents 
the  greatest  possible  contrast  to,  the  form  of  God.  He 
desired  to  live  a  human  life,  of  which  servitude  should  be 
the  characteristic  feature, — servitude  in  every  conceivable 
sense,  and  in  the  extreme  degree;  so  that  the  whole  of  His 
history  might  be  summed  up  in  His  own  words  to  His  dis- 
ciples: "I  am  among  you  as  one  who  serveth."  Such  was 
Christ's  mind  in  resolving  to  enter  into  this  time  world,  as 
conceived  of  here  by  Paul.  He  would  come  to  earth  not  to 
be  ministered  unto,  but  to  minister.  No  view  of  our  Lord's 
person  and  work  can  be  satisfactory  which  does  not  do  full 
justice  to  this  great  truth. 

Having  described  the  first  great  act  in  which  the  mind 
of  Christ  revealed  itself, — the  kenosis, — the  apostle  next  pro- 
ceeds to  describe  the  second,  the  humiliation  {ra.itzivo>)6i<C),  in 
these  terms:  "And  being  found  in  fashion,  or  guise,  as  a 
man,  He  humbled  Himself  and  became  obedient  as  far  as 
death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross."  Here,  again,  what  is 
emphasized  is  not  the  humanity  of  Christ,  but  the  servile, 
suffering  character  of  His  life  as  a  man.  The  humanity  is 
described  in  terms  which,  if  meant  to  be  emphatic,  might 
suggest  a  doketic  view  of  the  Incarnation — "being  found 
in  guise  as  a  man,  a  man  to  look  at,  and  in  outward  ap- 


22  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

ince."  But  the  apostle  is  bent,  not  on  asserting  dog- 
matically the  reality  of  Christ's  humanity,  but  on  holding 
up  to  admiration  the  humility  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus. 
Now  actually  become  man,  recognisable  as  a  man  by  all 
His  fellow-men,  He  humbled  Himself.  And  how,  accord- 
i  the  apostle,  did  Christ  as  man  show  His  humility  ? 
By  persevering  in,  and  carrying  out,  the  purpose  for  which 
He  became  man.  Having  become  man  that  He  might  be 
a  servant,  He,  being  now  a  man,  gave  Himself  up  to  ser- 
vice; became  obedient — carried  obedience  to  its  extreme 
limit,  submitting  even  to  death,  and  to  death  in  its  most 
degrading  form;  so,  for  divine  glory  renounced,  receiving 
in  exchange  the  deepest  ignominy  to  which  even  a  slave 
can  be  subjected.  Why  obedience  was  carried  this  length 
is  not  explained;  the  reason  is  assumed  to  be  known.  The 
point  emphasized  is,  that  Christ  humbled  Himself  to  this 
extent,  and  so  realized  His  aim  in  becoming  man,  and 
persevered  in  the  same  mind  to  the  very  last. 

In  view  of  the  foregoing  exposition,  these  inferences  from 
the  passage  we  have  been  considering  seem  warrantable: — 

i.  The  account  given  of  the  mind  of  the  Subject  spoken 
about,  presupposes  the  existence  previous  to  the  Incarnation 
of  a  divine  Personality  capable  of  a  free  resolve  to  perform 
the  sublime  act  of  self-exinanition  which  issued  in  the 
Incarnation. 

2.  This  act  of  self-exinanition  involved  a  change  of  state 
for  the  Divine  Actor;  an  exchange,  absolute  or  relative, 
of  the  form  of  God  for  the  form  of  a  servant. 

Notwithstanding  this  change,  the  personality  contin- 
ued the  same.  Kenosis  did  not  mean  self-extinction,  or 
metamorphosis  of  a  Divine  Being  into  a  mere  man.  He 
who  emptied  Himself  was  the  same  with  Him  who  humbled 
Himself;  and  the  kenosis  and  the  tapeinosis  were  two  acts 
of  the  same  mind  dwelling  in  the  same  Subject. 

4.  The  humiliation  (tapeinosis)  being  a  perseverance  in 
the  mind  which  led  to  the  kenosis,  implies  not  only  identity 
of  the  subject,  but  continuity  of  self-consciousness  in  that 
subject.  The  man  Christ  Je.->us  knew  that,  being  in  the 
form  of  God,  He  had  become  man,  was  acquainted  with 
the  mind  that  animated  Him  before  His  Incarnation,  and 


Christological  Axioms.  23 

made  it  His  business  in  the  incarnate  state  to  carry  out 
that  mind. 

5.  Christ's  life  on  earth  was  emphatically  a  life  of  service. 

6.  Throughout  the  whole  drama  of  self-exinanition,  as 
indeed  the  very  word  implies,  Christ  was  a  free  agent.  He 
did  not  merely  experience  kenosis  and  tapeinosis, — He 
emptied  Himself,  He  humbled  Himself.  The  kenosis  must 
be  ethically  conceived,  not  as  bringing  the  subject  once  for 
all  into  a  state  of  physical  inability  to  assert  equality  with 
God,  but  as  leaving  room  for  a  voluntary  perseverance  in 
the  mind  not  to  assert  that  equality,  on  the  part  of  One 
who  could  do  otherwise.  This  voluntariness,  however,  is 
not  to  be  conceived  of  as  excluding  a  reign  of  natural  law 
in  Christ's  humanity;  such  being  necessary  to  the  reality 
of  that  humanity,  and  involved,  indeed,  in  the  very  idea  of 
a  human  nature.  To  imagine  that  Christ  hungered,  and 
thirsted,  and  slept,  and  felt  weariness  by  a  special  act  of 
will, — making  possible  by  a  miracle  what  would  otherwise 
have  been  impossible, — is  unmitigated  doketism.  This 
form  of  doketism,  as  I  shall  have  occasion  hereafter  to 
point  out,  is  not  unknown  in  the  history  of  doctrine. 

These  inferences  are  all  in  harmony  with  the  main  scope 
of  the  passage,  which  is  to  eulogize  the  humility  of  Christ, 
The  first  gives  to  that  humility  unbounded  scope  to  dis- 
play itself,  by  introducing  the  self-renouncing  mind  even 
within  the  sphere  of  divinity;  the  second  makes  self-exin- 
anition a  reality  even  for  God;  the  third  secures  that  what- 
ever in  the  earthly  experience  of  the  man  Christ  Jesus 
involved  humiliation,  shall  be  predicable  of  a  divine  person; 
the  fourth  gives  infinite  moral  value  to  every  act  of  self- 
humiliation  performed  by  Christ  on  earth,  by  making  the 
actor  conscious  of  the  contrast  between  His  past  and 
present  states,  performing  every  lowly  service  as  One  who 
knew  "that  He  was  from  God;"1  the  fifth  exhibits  the 
contrast  between  the  pre-incarnate  and  the  post-incarnate 
states  in  the  strongest  possible  light;  and  the  sixth,  by 
representing  Christ  as,  in  the  whole  course  of  His  humilia- 
tion, a  free  agent,  not  merely  the  passive  subject  of  an 
involuntary   experience,   makes    Him  in   all  a  proper  ex- 

1  John  xiii.  3. 


24  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

ample  of  humility,  as  well  as  a  fit   subject   of  reward   by 
exaltation. 

While  full  of  instruction  regarding  the  mind  of  the  Di- 
vine Being  known  in  this  world's  history  by  the  name  of 
Jesus  Christ,  the  passage  whose  meaning  we  have  now 
ascertained  is  vague  apd  general  in  its  statements  concern- 
ing the  humanity  assumed  by  that  Being  in  a  spirit  of  self- 
exinanition.  It  does  not  tell  us  how  the  humanity  was 
assumed,  nor  does  it  teach  any  definite  doctrine  on  the 
more  general  question:  how  far  the  assuming  agent  was 
like  other  men.  That  there  was  a  genesis  of  some  sort, 
and  a  likeness  to  some  extent  is  all  that  is  expressly 
indicated.  The  phrases  in  which  the  likeness  is  asserted1 
have  even  a  superficial  look  of  doketism  about  them,  which, 
while  not  without  its  value  as  an  incidental  proof  that  the 
subject  spoken  of  is  something  more  than  man,  at  the  same 
time  seems  to  imply  that  He  is  also  something  less.  It 
would  be  altogether  unwarrantable,  however,  to  found  a 
serious  charge  of  doketism  on  the  manner  in  which  the 
apostle  expresses  himself.2  For,  while  it  may  not  be  im- 
possible to  put  a  doketic  construction  on  the  letter  of  the 
passage,  such  a  construction  is  utterly  excluded  by  its 
spirit.  The  form  of  a  servant  ascribed  to  the  incarnate 
One,  implies  likeness  to  men  in  their  present  condition  in 
all  possible  respects;  for  how  could  one  be  in  earnest  with 
the  servant's  work  whose  humanity  was  in  any  sense  do- 
ketic ?  Then,  from  the  mind  in  which  the  Incarnation 
took  its  origin,  the  complete  likeness  of  Christ's  humanity 
to  ours  may  be  inferred  with  great  confidence.  He  who 
was  not  minded  to  retain  His  equality  with  God,  was  not 
likely  to  assume  a  humanity  that  was  a  make-believe  or  a 
sham.  It  would  be  His  desire  to  be  in  all  things  "  like 
unto  His  brethren."  3 

1  kv  d/uoicouari  dvrjpoj7roov  yEv6f.if.vo'.,  6xV!l(XTl  svpsOei1;  &5?  av- 
OpoonoS. 

■  As  Baur  has  done  in  his  Apostel  Paulus,  Zweite  Theil,  p.  50  ff.  (Zweite 
Auflage).  The  Gnostic  style  of  thought  supposed  to  characterize  the  passage,  ii. 
5-9,  involved  in  the  doctrine  of  the  kenosis,  and  also  in  the  doketic  view  of  Christ's 
humanity,  is  Baur's  chief  argument  against  the  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians. 

3  Van  Mastricht  finds  even  in  the  phrase  xai  6x?/uari  £i)/>«9e/S  coS  avrJpoo 
*o5a  testimony  to  the  reality  of  Chi  says:  '•  X  dat  habitant, 


Christological  Axioms.  25 

On  these  grounds  the  homousia1  of  Christ's  humanity 
with  ours  may  be  regarded  as  a  legitimate  inference  from 
the  passage  we  have  been  considering.  But  that  import- 
ant doctrine  does  not  rest  on  mere  inference;  it  is  expressly 
taught  in  other  places  of  Scripture,  especially  in  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews,  where  it  is  proclaimed  with  great 
clearness  and  emphasis.  The  writer  of  that  Epistle,  like 
the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  treats  of  the 
subject  of  Christ's  humiliation,  but  from  a  different  point 
of  view.  Paul  exhibits  that  humiliation  as  something  vol- 
untarily endured  by  Christ  in  a  spirit  of  condescension  and 
self-renunciation,  which  he  exhorts  his  readers  to  admire  and 
imitate.  The  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  on  the 
other  hand,  regards  the  same  humiliation  as  an  experience 
to  which  Christ  was  subjected,  and  which,  as  apparently 
incongruous  to  His  intrinsic  dignity,  demands  explanation. 
The  point  of  view  is  adapted  by  the  writer  to  the  spiritual 
condition  of  his  readers.  The  Hebrew  Christians  to  whom 
he  writes  can  see  in  the  earthly  experience  of  Jesus  nothing 
glorious  or  admirable,  but  only  a  dark,  perplexing  puzzle, 
a  stumbling-block  to  faith,  which  makes  it  hard  to  believe 
that  Jesus  can  be  the  Christ.  Hence,  for  one  who  would 
establish  them  in  the  faith  and  keep  them  from  apostasy, 
it  becomes  an  imperative  task  to  endeavour  to  set  the 
earthly  history  of  the  object  of  faith  in  such  a  light  that  it 
chould  not  only  cease  to  be  a  stumbling-block,  but  even 
b  converted  into  a  source  of  strength  and  comfort.  To 
this  task  the  writer  accordingly  addresses  himself  with  great 
boldness,  skill,  and  eloquence.  Disdaining  the  expedient 
for  making  the  task  easy  of  lowering  the  essential  dignity 
of  Christ,  he  commences  his  Epistle  by  setting  forth  that 
dignity  in  terms  which,  for  fulness,  clearness,  and  intensity, 

gestum,  speciem  omneque  externum,  quod  incurrit  in  sensus  a  quo  quid  agnoscitur, 
quo  veritatem  humanae  suae  naturae  passim  Christus  demonstravit  (Luc.  xxiv.  39; 
John  xx.  27).  Non  est  idem  (<?£?//*«)  cum  jiopcp^j  djuoiajjuazi,  non  inanis  figura 
et  species  corporis,  quasi  Christus  non  esset  verus  homo,  sed  talis  habitus  qui  de 
monstrat  rei  veritatem  sicut  rvpavvov  6xrjua.  ex£'l-v  apud  Sophoclem,  est  se 
tyrannum  praestare,  demonstrare.  Hinc  svpeSeiS  dicitur,  inventus,  compertus, 
certissimis  argumentis  est,  <aS  avf/fiooTto?,  sicut  homo,  scil.  verus,  vulgaris,  ut 
goS  hie  sit  affirmants,  seu  veritatis  nota,  non  similitudinis." — Theor.  pract.  Theo- 
logia,  lib.  v.  cap.  ix.  pars  exeget.  '    Vid.  p.  3,  note  1. 


26  The  Humiliation  of   Christ. 

are  not  surpassed  by  any  to  be  found  in  Scripture.  Then 
having  declared  Christ  to  be  the  Son  of  God,  the  bright- 
ness of  God's  glory  and  the  express  image  of  His  person, 
the  Lord  of  angels,  the  Maker  of  worlds,  the  everlasting 
King,  he  approaches  the  subject  of  His  humilation,  and 
sets  himself  to  show  how  it  can  be  reconciled  with  His 
inherent  majesty.  The  proof  is  given  in  the  second  chap- 
ter of  the  Epistle  from  the  fifth  verse  to  the  end,  and  pre- 
sents a  train  of  reasoning  characterized  by  profundity  of 
thought,  and  by  a  rhetorical  skill  which  knows  how  to 
make  every  thought  bear  upon  the  practical  purpose  in 
view, — that,  viz.,  of  strengthening  weak  faith  and  comfort- 
ing desponding  hearts.  This  argument  it  is  not  necessary 
for  our  present  object  to  expound  elaborately;  it  will 
suffice  to  indicate  the  leading  idea.  The  grand  thought, 
then,  in  this  remarkable  passage  is  this,  that  Christ  to  be 
a  Saviour  must  be  a  Brotiicr,  and  that,  as  things  actually 
stand,  that  means  that  He  must  be  humbled,  must  pass 
through  a  curriculum  of  temptation  and  suffering  as  a  man, 
in  order  that  He  may  be  in  all  respects  like  unto  His  brethren. 
This  great  principle  of  brotherhood  is  formally  enunciated 
in  the  eleventh  verse  in  these  terms:  "  Both  He  that  sancti- 
fieth  and  they  who  are  (being)  sanctified  are  all  of  one;" 
a  proposition  in  the  precise  interpretation  of  which  expos- 
itors are  much  divided,  but  whose  general  import  plainly 
is,  that  the  Sanctifier  and  those  whom  He  is  to  sanctify, 
however  different  in  character,  stand  in  such  a  relation  to 
one  another,  that  the  nearer  they  are  in  all  other  respects, 
the  greater  the  power  of  the  Sanctifier  to  perform  His 
sanctifying  work.  Sanctifier  and  those  to  be  sanctified 
must  be  all  of  one  race,  all  one  party,  having  one  interest, 
one  lot,  a  brotherhood  to  all  intents  and  purposes;  the 
Holy  One  descending  first  into  the  state  of  the  unholy,  that 
He  may  raise  them  in  turn  to  His  own  proper  level  in 
privilege  and  in  character.1     Having  enunciated  this  general 

1  In  the  interpretation  of  this  important  text  I  agree  generally  with  Hofmann, 
whose  views  are  to  the  following  effect:  The  statement  is  to  be  understood  as  a 
general  proposition,  as  is  shown  by  the  present  tenses  (dyidZoov ,  ayiaZousvoi), 
which  express  not  a  habitual  activity  on  the  part  of  the  Saviour,  but  a  thing  dona 
once  for  all  in  Christ's  history.  Only  as  a  general  proposition  could  the  statement 
serve  the  purpose  for  which  it  was  intended.     Were  it  merely  a  historical  fact,  it 


Christological  Axioms.  27 

principle,  as  one  which  he  hopes  may  commend  itself 
as  self-evident  to  the  minds  of  his  readers,  the  writer  next 
proceeds  to  show  that  it  is  recognised,  has  its  root,  in  Old 
Testament  Scripture,  and  thereafter  to  supply  some  ex- 
amples of  its  practical  application.  With  the  former  view 
he  makes  three  quotations  from  the  Psalms  and  the  pro- 
phets, the  first  of  which  indicates  that  Messiah  stands 
before  God,  not  without,  but  within  a  community,  and  in 
it  as  a  community  of  persons  whom  He  regards  as  breth- 
ren, and  to  whom  He  has  been  drawn  closer  in  fellow- 
feeling  by  suffering;  the  second,  that  in  the  performance 
of  His  work,  Messiah  stands  in  the  same  relation  to  God, 
that  of  faith  and  dependence,  as  those  whose  good  He  has  at 
heart;  and  the  third,  that  Messiah  has  associated  with  Him 
in  His  work  fellow- workers,  to  whom  He  is  knit  by  the  close 
bond  of  human  kinsmanship,  even  as  God  gave  to  Isaiah 
his  own  children  to  be  joint-prophets  with  him,  "for  signs 
and  for  wonders  in  Israel  from  the  Lord  of  hosts."1  These 
three  quotations  the  writer  follows  up  with  three  examples 
of  the  application  of  the  principles  which  the  quotations 
are  intended  to  establish.  The  principle  is  applied,  first, 
to  the  Incarnation;  second,  to  the  death  of  Christ;  and 
thirdly,  to  His  whole  experience  of  suffering  and  temptation 
between  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  His  ministry.     The 

would  need  to  be  shown  why  the  fact  was  so;  whereas  the  object  is  to  show  how 
the  vocation  of  Christ  as  a  Saviour,  as  a  matter  of  course,  required  Him  to  assume 
a  suffering  nature  like  ours.  The  idea  of  dyid~Eiv  involves  that  the  Actor  and 
those  for  whom  He  acts  are  all  of  one  origin.  Havre?  is  not  superfluous,  nor 
is  it  =  ducpovEfiOi;  but  it  signifies  that  the  difference  between  Sanctifier  and 
sanctified  does  not  affect  descent,  in  reference  to  which  they  are  rather  Ttdvrei 
kz  kvoi.  What  follows  I  give  in  Hofmann's  own  words:  "  Freilich  muss  mar. 
nicht  gleiche  Herkunft  aus  Gott  verstehen,  von  der  es  heissen  mtisste  dass  sie  von 
ihnen  nicht  minder,  als  von  ihm  gelte;  nicht  TtdvrEi  sondern  ducpozEpoi  musste 
es  heissen;  dann  aber  auch  nicht  e\  evoS,  da  der  Nachdruck  darauf  lage,  dass  der 
Eine  Gott  es  ist,  von  dem  er  und  von  dem  sie  herkommen,  sondern  eh  tov  evoS  " 
(that  is,  descent  from  God  is  not  meant,  otherwise  it  would  have  been  said  both, 
not  all  are  of  one,  both  they  as  well  as  He,  and  it  would  further  have  been  said 
not  of  one,  but  of  the  One).  "Mit  TtdvvEZ  hi  kvoi  ist  nicht  betont,  von  wannen 
sie  sind,  sondern  dass  sich  die  Aligemeinheit  des  gleichen  Herkunft  tlber  den  Ge- 
gensatz  des  dyidZoov  und  der  dyiaZousvoi  erstreckt."  (The  object  is  not  to 
emphasize  from  whom  or  whence  the  parties  take  their  origin,  but  to  point  out 
that  the  community  of  origin  covers  the  contrast  between  6  dyid^oov  and  oi 
dyiaZojitev 01.) — Schriftbezveis,  ii.  52-3. 

1  So  substantially  Hofmann,  Schriftbeweis,  ii.  54. 


28  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

principle  upon  which  the  work  of  salvation  proceeds  being, 
that  Sanctifier  and  sanctified  are  all  of  one,  it  follows  first, 
that  inasmuch  as  the  subjects  of  Christ's  work  are  partakers 
of  flesh  and  blood,  He  also  must  in  like  manner  become 
partaker  of  the  same  (the  likeness  of  the  manner  extending 
even  to  the  being  born,  so  that  He  might  be  one  of  the 
children);  second,  that  inasmuch  as  the  subjects  of  Christ's 
work  are  liable  to  death  and  to  the  fear  of  it,  He  also  must 
die  that  He  may  deliver  His  brethren  from  their  bondage; 
third,  that  inasmuch  as  the  subjects  of  Christ's  work  are 
exposed  through  life  to  manifold  trials  and  temptations, 
therefore  He  must  pass  through  a  very  complete  curriculum, 
of  temptation,  that  He  might  be  perfected  in  sympathy,  and 
gain  the  confidence  of  His  brethren  as  one  who  could  not 
fail  to  be  a  merciful  and  trustworthy  High  Priest  in  things 
pertaining  to  God. 

The  doctrine  of  the  homousia,  taking  the  term  as  signi- 
fying likeness  both  in  nature  and  in  experience,  thus  shines 
forth  in  full  lustre  in  this  magnificent  paragraph  of  the 
Epistle.  It  is  enunciated  as  an  axiomatic  truth;  it  is  estab- 
lished by  Scripture  proof;  it  is  illustrated  by  outstanding 
facts  in  Christ's  history,  His  birth,  His  death,  His  expe- 
rience of  temptation;  it  is  re-asserted  in  the  strongest  terms 
it  is  possible  to  employ:  "  In  all  things  it  behoved  Him  to 
be  made  like  unto  His  brethren."  Nor  does  this  exhaust 
the  testimony  to  the  doctrine  contained  in  the  Epistle.  In- 
direct allusions  to,  and  confirmations  and  enlargements  of, 
the  same  truth  are  scattered  over  its  pages  like  gems;  the 
first  hint  occurring  at  the  ninth  verse  of  the  second  chapter, 
where  the  Lord  of  angels,  and  rightful  object  of  angelic 
worship,  is  described  as  one  made  lower  than  the  angels.1 
Why?  Because  He  is  the  appointed  Restorer  of  Paradise 
and  of  all  that  man  possessed  there,  and,  in  particular,  of 
lordship  over  all;  and  man  being  now  no  longer  lord,  but 
rather  a  degraded  slave,  the  second  Adam  must  take  Hi? 
place  beside  him,  assuming  the  form  and  position  of  a  ser- 
vant, that  He  may  lift  man  out  of  his  degradation,  and 
restore  to  him  his  forfeited  inheritance.  An  eloquent  reit- 
eration of  the  doctrine  occurs  at  the  close  of  that  part  of 
0£*  ftpaxv  xt  Ttap'  dyyeXovS  TiXazTooudvov. 


Christological  Axioms.  29 

the  Epistle  which  treats  of  the  eternal  Sabbatism,  an- 
other element  of  the  paradisaical  bliss  lost  by  the  fall, 
whereof  Jesus  is  the  appointed  Restorer.  In  this  place  the 
great  High  Priest  of  humanity,  and  the  Joshua  of  the  Lord's 
host,  Himself  now  entered  into  the  heavenly  rest,  is  repre- 
sented as  one  who  can  be  touched  with  a  feeling  of  our 
infirmities,  seeing  He  was  tempted  in  all  respects  as  we  are, 
was  once  a  weary  wanderer  like  ourselves, — the  statement 
being  made  only  the  more  emphatic  by  the  qualifying 
clause  "  without  sin."  "  Tempted  in  all  respects  as  we 
are,"  speaking  deliberately,  the  sole  difference  being  that 
He  never  yielded  to  temptation  while  in  the  wilderness,  as 
we  too  often  do.  The  chapter  following  contains  a  touch- 
ing allusion  to  a  special  point  in  the  similitude  of  our  Lord's 
experience  to  ours,  which  brings  Him  very  close  to  human 
sympathies.  It  is  in  the  place  where  Jesus  is  represented 
as  offering  up,  in  the  days  of  His  flesh,  prayers  and  suppli- 
cations, with  strong  crying  and  tears,  unto  Him  that  was 
able  to  save  Him  from  death.1  Even  thus  far  did  the  like- 
ness extend.  The  Sanctifier  shared  with  His  brethren  the 
fear  of  death,  through  which  they  are  all  their  lifetime  sub- 
ject to  bondage.  Once  more,  the  comprehensive  view 
given  in  this  Epistle,  of  the  work  of  Christ  as  the  Author 
of  salvation,  suggests  by  implication  an  equally  compre- 
hensive view  of  the  likeness  between  Him  and  His  brethren. 
The  writer,  in  describing  the  work  of  redemption,  keeps 
constantly  before  his  mind  the  history  of  man  in  Paradise. 
He  makes  salvation  consist  in  lordship  of  the  world  that  is 
to  be,  in  deliverance  from  the  fear  of  death,  in  entrance 
into  a  rest  often  promised  but  yet  remaining,  an  ideal 
unexhausted  by  all  past  partial  realizations — the  perfect 
Sabbatism  of  the  people  of  God.  These  representations 
plainly  point  back  to  the  dominion  over  the  creatures  con- 
ferred on  man  at  his  creation,  and  lost  by  sin;  to  the  death 
which  was  the  wages  of  sin,  and  which  Satan  brought  on 
man  by  successfully  tempting  him  to  disobedience;  and 
to  God's  rest  after  the  work  of  creation  was  finished,  in 
which  unfallen  man  had  part,  and  in  which  man  restored  is 
destined  again   to  share.     Salvation  thus  consists  in   the 

1  Heb.  v.  7. 


30  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

cancelling  of  all  the  effects  of  the  fall,  and  in  the  restoration 
of  all  that  man  lost  by  his  sin.  But  if  this  be  the  nature 
of  salvation,  what,  on  the  principle  that  Sanctifier  and 
sanctified  are  all  of  one,  must  the  likeness  of  the  Saviour 
to  the  sinful  sons  of  Adam  amount  to?  Evidently  to 
subjection  to  tJie  curse  in  its  whole  extent,  as  far  as  that  is 
possible  for  one  who  is  Himself  without  sin. 

The  view  thus  presented  of  our  Lord's  state  of  humilia- 
tion is  admirably  fitted  to  serve  the  purpose  which  the 
writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  had  in  mind  (that  of 
fortifying  his  readers  against  temptations  to  apostasy, 
whether  arising  out  of  the  internal  difficulties  of  the  Chris- 
tian faith,  or  out  of  eternal  affliction  suffered  on  account  of 
the  faith),  giving  as  it  does  to  our  Lord's  whole  earthly 
experience  a  winsome  aspect  of  sympathy  with  humanity 
in  its  present  sorrowful  condition.  But  we  have  not  yet 
exhausted  what  the  author  of  this  Epistle  has  to  say  by 
way  of  reconciling  the  Hebrew  Christians  to  what  had 
hitherto  been  an  offence  unto  them.  He  is  not  content 
with  apologising  for  Christ's  humiliation;  he  boldly  repre- 
sents that  experience  as  in  another  aspect  a  glorification  of 
its  subject.  He  speaks  of  Jesus  as  crowned  with  glory  and 
honour;  not  because  He  has  tasted  death  for  men,  but  in 
order  that  He,  by  the  grace  of  God,  might  taste  death  for 
men.1  It  has  been  customary,  indeed,  to  regard  this  pas- 
sage as  referring  to  the  state  of  exaltation,  in  which  Christ 
receives  the  reward  of  His  voluntary  endurance  of  the 
indignities  connected  with  the  state  of  humiliation;  but  I 
agree  with  Hofmann2  in  thinking  that  the  reference  is  rather 
to  an  honour  and  glory  which  is  not  subsequent  to,  but 
contemporaneous  with,  the  state  of  humiliation, — the  bright 
side,  in  fact,  of  one  and  the  same  experience.  It  is  the 
honour  and  glory  of  being  appointed  to  the  high  office  of 
Apostle  and  High  Priest  of  the  Christian  profession,  the 
Moses  and  the  Aaron  of  the  new  dispensation.    That  office 

Heb.  ii.  9. 
*  Schtiftbrajeis,  ii.  46  fif.,  Zweite  Auflage.  Hofmann's  exposition  of  the  whole 
chapter  is  extremely  good,  and  seems  to  me  to  bring  out  the  connection  of  thought 
better  on  the  whole  than  anything  I  have  seen.  His  discussions  on  the  Epistle  tc 
the  Hebrews,  generally,  are  most  instructive,  though  not  free  from  characteristic 
eccentricities. 


Christological  Axioms.  31 

doubtless  involves  humiliation,  inasmuch  as  it  imposes  on 
Him  who  holds  it  the  necessity  of  tasting  death;  but  even 
in  that  respect  His  experience  is  not  exclusively  humiliate 
ing.  For  while  it  is  a  humiliation  to  die,  it  is  glorious  to 
taste  death  for  others;  and  by  dying,  to  abolish  death,  and 
bring  life  and  immortality  to  light.  To  be  appointed  to  an 
office  which  has  such  a  purpose  in  view,  is  ipso  facto  to  be 
crowned  with  glory  and  honour,  and  is  a  mark  of  signal 
grace  or  favour  on  the  part  of  God.  And  this  is  precisely 
what  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  would  have  his  readers  un- 
derstand. He  would  not  have  them  see  in  the  earthly 
career  of  Jesus  mere  humiliation, — degradation  difficult  to 
reconcile  with  His  Messianic  dignity;  but  rather  the  rough, 
yet  not  degrading  experience,  incidental  to  a  high,  honour- 
able, holy  vocation.  "We  see,"  he  says  in  effect,  "two 
things  in  Him  by  whom  the  prophecy  in  the  eighth  Psalm 
is  destined  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  restoration  of  man  to  lord- 
ship in  the  world  to  come.  On  the  one  hand,  we  see  Him 
made  lower  than  angels  by  becoming  partaker  of  mortal 
flesh  and  blood;  a  lowering  made  necessary  by  the  fact  that 
it  was  men,  not  angels,  whose  case  He  was  undertaking, — 
men  subject  to  the  experience  of  death,  whom,  therefore, 
on  account  of  that  experience,  He  could  help  only  by 
assuming  a  humanity  capable  of  undergoing  the  same 
experience.1  On  the  other  hand,  we  see  in  this  same  Jesus, 
humbled  by  being  made  a  mortal  man, one  crowned  with  glory 
and  honour  in  being  appointed  to  the  office  of  Restorer  of 
Paradise  and  all  its  privileges,  including  lordship  over  all; 
an  office,  indeed,  whose  end  cannot  be  reached  without  the 
endurance  of  death,  but  whose  end  is  at  the  same  time  so 
glorious  that  it  confers  dignity  upon  the  means;  so  that  it 
may  be  said  in  sober  truth  that  the  divine  Father  mani- 
fested signal  grace  towards  His  Son  in  giving  Him  the 
opportunity  of  tasting  death  for   others;    that  is   to  say, 

1  With  Hofmann,  I  connect  did  to  TtdBrjua  rov  Savdrov  (ver.  9)  with  the 
foregoing  clause,  and  understand  it  as  referring  not  specially  to  Christ's  own  suf- 
ferings, but  generally  to  the  experience  of  death,  to  which  man  is  subject.  It 
points  out  that  in  man's  condition,  on  account  of  which  Christ  had  to  be  made 
lower  than  angels,  so  far  as  this  implied  becoming  man.  Those  whose  case  Christ 
undertook  were  men  subject  to  death,  therefore  He  too  must  become  man  that  it 
might  be  possible  for  Him  to  die. 


32  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

of  abolishing  death  as  a  curse,  and  making  it  quite  another 
thing  for  them,  by  enduring  it  in  His  own  person." 

That  such  is  the  import  of  this  notable  text  I  have  little 
doubt,  although  I  am  constrained  to  admit  that  the  mean- 
ing now  taken  out  of  it  has  comparatively  little  support  in 
the  history  of  interpretation.     Most  commentators  explain 
the  passage  as  if,  with  the  Hebrew  Christians,  they  thought 
the  humiliation  of  Christ  stood  very  much  in  need  of  apology. 
Disregarding  the  grammatical  construction,  the  scope  of 
the  argument,  and  the  hint  given  in  the  expression  "  we 
see,"  which  indicates  that  what  is  spoken  of  is  something 
falling  within  the  sphere  of  visible  reality,  they  almost  with 
one  consent  relegate  the  glory  and  honour  to  the  state  of 
exaltation,  as  if  the  mention  of  such  things  in  connection 
with  the  state  of  humiliation  were  out  of  the  question,  and 
altogether  unwarranted  by  Scripture  usage;  although  the 
Apostle  Peter  speaks  of  Jesus  as  having  received  from  God 
the  Father  "  honour  and  glory"  when  there  came  such  a 
voice  to  Him  from  the  Excellent  Glory:  "  This  is  my  be- 
loved Son,  in  whom  I    am  well   pleased;"1  and  although 
further,  in  this  very  Epistle,  it  is  said  of  Jesus,  as  the  Apostle 
of  our  profession,    that  He  was  counted  worthy  of  more 
"  glory  "  than  Moses,2  and,  as  the  High  Priest  of  our  pro- 
fession, that  even  as  no  man  took  upon  himself  the  honour 
of  the  Jewish  high-priesthood,  "  so  also  Christ  glorified  not 
Himself  to  be  made  an  high  priest,  but  He  that  said  unto 
Him:   '  Thou  art  my  Son,  to-day  have  I  begotten  Thee.' "  3 
And  as  to  taking  the  "  grace  of  God  "  spoken  of  in  the  last 
clause  of  the  sentence  as  manifested  directly,  not  to  those 
for  whom  Jesus  died,   but  to  Jesus  Himself  privileged  to 
die  for  them,  it  is  an  interpretation  which,  though  yielding 
a  thought  true  in  itself  and  relevant  to  the  purpose  in  hand, 
does  not  seem  even  to  have  occurred  to  the  minds  of  most 
expositors.     This  is  all  the  more  surprising,  that  thepoint- 
lessness  of  the  expression  in  question,  as  ordinarily  inter- 
preted, has  not  escaped  notice.     Ebrard,  for  example,  feels 
it  so  strongly  that  he  falls  back  on  the    ancient  reading 
xoopii  9eov,  adopted  by  Origen  and  the  Xestorians,  and  used 
by  the  former  as  an  argument  in  favour  of  his  theory  of  uni- 
2  Pet.  i.  17.  2  Heb.  Mi.  3.  3  Heb.  v.  4,  5. 


Christological  Axioms.  33 

versal  restitution,1  and  by  the  latter  as  a  proof  text  in 
support  of  their  doctrine  of  a  double  personality  in  the  one 
Christ.  "  The  reading  ^a'pzrz/' :  Ebrard  remarks,  "is  cer- 
tainly clear  as  water,  extremely  easy  to  understand,  but 
also  extremely  empty  of  thought,  and  unsuitable;"  herein 
echoing  the  tone  as  well  as  the  thought  of  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia,  who  calls  it  ridiculous  to  substitute  xa/wri  Qeov 
instead  of  ^<apz;  Qeov,  and  represents  those  who  do  so  as 
adopting  a  reading  which  appears  to  them  easy  of  compre- 
hension, because  they  fail  to  see  the  sense  of  the  true,  more 
difficult  reading;  that  sense  being,  in  his  view,  that  the  man 
Jesus  tasted  death  apart  from  God  the  Logos,  to  whom  in 
life  He  had  been  joined,  it  being  unseemly  that  the  Logos 
should  have  any  personal  connection  with  death,  though  it 
was  not  unseemly  that  He  should  make  the  man  Jesus,  as 
the  Captain  of  Salvation,  perfect  through  suffering.3  It  is 
not  surprising  that  the  Master  of  the  East  should  have 
preferred  a  reading  which  seemed  to  favour  his  peculiar 
Christological  theory;  but  it  does  seem  strange  that  a 
modern  theologian,  holding  very  different  views  on  Chris- 
tology,  should  feel  himself  forced  to  fall  back  on  that  read- 

1  Comment,  in  Joann.  torn.  i.  c.  40:  "tieya-  i6riv  dpxiEpEv^,  ovx  vxsp 
avSpooncov  uovov ,  aXXd  xai  TtavToS  Xoyixov  rr/v  dnaz  *iv6iav  -xpo6- 
EVExbsiGccv  kocvrov  dvsvsyxojv.  XoopiS  yap  Qeov  vitep  rtavToi 
syevdaro  SavaTov,  oxsp  iv  ri6i  xElrai  rrji  npo?  'E/lpaiov?  avri- 
ypdpoi?,  xdpivi  Qeov.  Eite  Ss  x°°P^  Qeov  vTtsp  itavxol  kyEv6a.ro 
havdrov,  ov  uovov  vixip  avSpoortajv  dixihavEv ,  dXXd  xai  vixip  r<2v 
Xoiitgov  XoyiKGDV."  Origen  includes  within  the  scope  of  the  navxoS  all  exist- 
ing beings  except  God,  viewed  as  tainted  with  man's  sin.  "Kai  yap,"  he  says, 
'■'•axoitov  vitip  avS  pooit  iv  gov  jjev  avzov  <pd6x£iv  duaprr/judToov  ys- 
yevdBai  Saratov,  ovx  sxi  Si  vitip  aXXov  rivol  itapd  rov  dv^pooitov 
iv  duapxijuaSi  ysyevijfievov  oiov  vitip  ddxpcov,  ov  Si  tgjv  a6rpcjv 
navxooi  xahapcSv  ovxoov  evgoitiov  rov  Qeov." 

-  Der  Brief  an  die  Hebraer  erkldrt,  p.  90. 

3  Theo.  Mops,  in  Epistolam  Pauli  ad  Hebraeos  comment  arii  Fragment  a,  Migne, 
Patrologiae  cursus,  torn.  lxvi.  p.  955.  Theodore's  words  are:  "  rsXoioxarov 
Sri  xi  Ttd6xov6i  ivrav'ja,  to  jcap/'?  Qeov  svaXXdrovTE?  xai  iroiovvrs? 
XoipxTt  Qeov  ov  ixpo6ixovxsi  xtj  dxoXovhia  xiji  rpacpri^,  dXX'  and  rov 
U?}  dvviivai  oxinori  icprj  to  X&P^  Qeov  ddiaq>6poJi  EcaXsicpovxsS  uiv 
exeivo,  ti^evteZ  Si  to  Soxovv  avzoli  evxoXov  Eivai  itpoS  xaxavo- 
?j6iv."  He  goes  on  to  say  that  it  was  not  Paul's  custom,  xdpixi  Qeov  xiSivai 
dirX&Ji  —  using  the  expression  as  a  pious  commonplace — aXXd  7tdvxoJi  and 
two'.  axoXov^iai  Xoyov;  which  is  quite  true  of  Paul  and  of  all  the  New 
Testament  writers,  and  favours  the  interpretation  given  above. 


34  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

ing,  from  sheer  inability  to  assign  a  suitable  and  worthy 
sense  to  the  reading  in  the  received  text,  while  such  an  in- 
terpretation as  I  have  ventured  to  suggest  was  open  to 
him.  Is  it,  then,  really  an  inadmissible  thought,  that  God 
showed  favour  to  Christ  in  appointing  Him  to  taste  death 
for  every  man  ?  is  it  out  of  keeping  with  the  general  strain 
of  this  Epistle  ?  does  it  not  fit  in  naturally  to  what  goes 
before  and  to  what  comes  after  ?  Was  it  not  worth  while 
to  point  out  to  persons  scandalized  by  the  humiliation  of 
Christ,  that  what  to  vulgar  view  might  seem  a  mark  of 
divine  disfavour,  was,  in  truth,  a  signal  proof  of  divine 
grace;  that  even  in  appointing  the  Son  of  man  to  go 
through  a  curriculum  of  suffering,  God  had  been  mindful  of 
Him,  and  had  graciously  visited  Him,  opening  up  to  Him 
the  high  career  of  Captain  of  Salvation  ?  And  how  are  we 
to  understand  the  assertion  following,  that  it  became  Him 
who  is  the  first  cause  and  last  end  of  all  to  perfect  the 
Captain  of  Salvation  by  suffering,  if  not  as  a  defence  of  the 
bold  idea,  contained,  as  it  appears  to  me,  in  the  preceding 
verse  ?  The  import  of  that  assertion  is  simply  this:  The 
means  and  the  end  of  salvation  are  both  worthy  of  the 
Supreme,  by  whom  and  for  whom  all  events  in  time  happen; 
the  end  manifestly  and  admittedly — for  who  will  question 
that  it  is  worthy  of  God  to  lead  many  sons  to  glory  ? — the 
means  not  less  than  the  end,  though  at  first  they  may 
appear  to  compromise  the  dignity  both  of  the  Supreme 
Cause  and  of  His  commissioned  Agent.  It  was  honourable 
for  the  Captain  of  Salvation  to  taste  of  death  in  the  prose- 
cution of  His  great  work;  it  was  an  honour  conferred  upon 
Him  by  God  the  Father  to  be  appointed  to  die  for  such  a 
purpose. 

This,  then,  is  another  truth,  besides  the  homoiisia  of 
Christ's  humanity  with  ours,  which  we  learn  from  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews:  that  Christ's  Jiumiliation  is  at  the 
same  time  in  an  important  sense  His  glorification;  that  it  is 
not  merely  followed  by  a  state  of  exaltation,  according  to  the 
doctrine  of  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  but  car- 
ries a  moral  compensation  within  itself;  so  that  we  need 
not  hesitate  to  emphasize  the  humiliation,  inasmuch  as  the 
more  real  and  thorough  it  is,  the  greater   the  glory  and 


Christological  Axioms.  3S 

honour  accruing  to  the  humbled  One.  The  glory  is  that 
of  one  "  full  of  grace  and  truth,"  manifested  not  in  spite  of, 
but  through  His  humiliation  made  visible  by  the  Incarna- 
tion and  the  human  life  of  the  Son  of  God,  as  the  Apostle 
John  testifies  when  he  says  in  the  beginning  of  his  Gospel: 
"  The  Word  was  made  flesh  and  dwelt  among  us,  and  we 
beheld  His  glory."  The  evangelist  explains,  indeed,  that 
the  glory  of  which  he  speaks  is  the  glory  as  of  the  Only- 
begotten  of  the  Father;  but  he  does  not  mean  by  that  the 
glory  of  metaphysical  majesty  visible  through  the  veil  of 
the  flesh  in  consequence  of  its  doketic  transparency.  He 
means  the  glory  of  divine  love  which  the  Only-begotten, 
who  was  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  came  forth  to  reveal, 
and  of  which  His  state  of  humiliation  on  earth  was  the 
historical  exegesis.  It  has,  indeed,  been  confidently  as- 
serted by  certain  writers  that  John  knows  nothing  of  a 
state  of  humiliation, — that  the  Incarnation  of  the  Word  is 
for  Him  not  an  abasement,  but  a  new  means  of  revealing 
His  glory,  the  representation  of  Christ's  death  in  his  Gospel 
as  an  exaltation  or  a  glorification  being  adduced  as  con- 
clusive proof  of  the  fact;  and  Protestant  scholastic  theo- 
logians have  been  severely  blamed  for  overlooking  or 
ignoring  the  undeniable  truth.  It  is  a  characteristic  illus- 
tration of  the  haste  and  one-sidedness  of  modern  criticism.1 
As  if  the  two  ideas  of  glorification  and  humiliation  were 
absolutely  incompatible;  as  if  John,  the  apostle  of  love, 
was  not  a  very  likely  person  to  comprehend  their  compati- 
bility; as  if  the  things  alleged  in  proof  of  his  ignorance  of  a 
state  of  humiliation  did  not  rather  prove  his  complete 
mastery  of  the  truth  now  insisted  on,  viz.  that  the  humilia- 
tions of  Christ  were  on  the  moral  side  glorifications  !  The 
glory  of  which  John  speaks  is  that  of  divine  grace  revealed 
in  word,  deed,  and  suffering,  to  the  eye  of  faith.  This 
glory  the  Only-begotten  won  by  renouncing  the  compara- 
tively barren  glory  of  metaphysical  majesty.  Thus,  in  be- 
coming poor,  He  at  the  same  time  enriched  Himself.  In 
the  words  of  Martensen,  "  Because  only  in  the  state  of 
humiliation  could  He  fully  reveal  the  depths  of  divine  love, 
and  because  it  was  by  this  His  poverty  that  He  made  all 

1   Vide  Reuss,  Theologie  Chre'tienne,  ii.  455. 


36  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

rich,  it  may  be  said  that  as  the  Son  of  man  He  first  took 
full  possession  of  His  divine  glory;  for  then  only  is  love  in 
full  possession  when  it  can  fully  communicate  itself,  and 
only  then  does  it  reveal  its  omnipotence,  when  it  conquers 
hearts,  and  has  the  strong  for  a  prey."1 

The  foregoing  discussion  of  the  passages  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  bearing  on  the  subject  of  the  humiliation  of 
Christ,  thus  yields  us  the  following  additions  to  the  list  of 
elementary  truths: — 

7.  The  service  Christ  came  to  render,  His  vocation  as  the 
Captain  of  Salvation,  or  the  Sanctifier,  was  such  as  to  in- 
volve likeness  to  men  in  all  possible  respects,  both  in  nature 
and  in  experience;  a  likeness  in  nature  as  complete  as  if 
He  were  merely  a  human  personality;  a  likeness  in  ex- 
perience of  temptation,  and,  in  general,  of  subjection  to  the 
curse  resting  on  man  on  account  of  sin,  limited  only  by 
His  personal  sinlessness. 

8.  Christ's  whole  state  of  exinanition  was  not  only  worthy 
to  be  rewarded  by  a  subsequent  state  of  exaltation,  bu,t 
was  in  itself  invested  with  moral  sublimity  and- dignity;  so 
that,  having  in  view  the  honour  of  the  Saviour,  we  have  no 
interest  in  minimizing  His  experience  of  humiliation,  but, 
on  the  contrary,  are  concerned  to  vindicate  for  that  ex- 
perience the  utmost  possible  fulness,  recognising  no  limit 
to  the  descent  except  that  arising  out  of  His  sinlessness. 

And  now,  having  furnished  ourselves  with  this  series  of 
axioms,  our  next  business  must  be  to  use  them  as  helps  in 
forming  a  critical  estimate  of  conflicting  Christological  and 
Soteriological  theories.  But  before  entering  on  this,  the 
main  part  of  our  undertaking,  it  will  be  expedient  here  to 
indicate  the  plan  on  which  our  subsequent  discussions 
will  be  conducted.  It  will  not  be  necessary,  for  the 
purpose  I  have  in  view  in  these  lectures,  that  I  should 
treat  with  scholastic  accuracy  of  the  different  stages 
or  stations  in  the  status  exinanitionis.  I  do  not  know 
that  for  any  purpose  such  a  mode  of  treatment  would 
be  of  much  service.  I  question,  indeed,  whether  exactitude 
in  handling  this  theme  be  practicable;  at  all  events,  it  is 
certain  that  anything  approaching  to  exactitude  is  not  to 

1  Die  Christliche  Dogmatik,  p.  246. 


Christological  Axioms.  37 

be  found  in  dogmatic  systems.  In  the  works  of  the  lead- 
ing dogmaticians  the  stages  of  our  Lord's  humiliation  are 
very  variously  enumerated,  though,  of  course,  certain  feat- 
ures are  common  to  all  the  schemes.  Occasionally  con- 
fusion of  thought  is  discernible, — acts  being  confounded 
with  states,  and  generals  treated  as  particulars.  The  In- 
carnation, e.g.,  is  sometimes  reckoned  to  the  state  of  ex- 
inanition,  whereas  it  is  in  truth  the  efficient  cause  of  the 
whole  state,  the  original  act  of  gracious  condescension 
whereof  the  state  of  humiliation  is  the  historical  evolution 
and  result.  An  instance  of  the  other  sort  of  confusion, 
that  of  turning  a  general  into  a  particular,  may  perhaps  be 
found  in  the  answer  given  in  the  Shorter  Catechism  to  the 
question  referring  to  Christ's  humiliation,  where  the  "  wrath 
of  God"  comes  in,  apparently  as  a  particular  experience, 
like  "the  cursed  death  of  the  cross"  mentioned  immedi- 
ately after;  while  the  expression,  though  peculiarly  appli- 
cable to  particular  experiences,  really  admits  of  being 
applied  to  the  whole  state  of  humiliation  as  a  designation 
thereof  from  a  certain  point  of  view,  as  in  fact  it  is  applied 
in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.1 

Instead,  therefore,  of  attempting  an  exact  enumeration 
of  the  stations,  I  propose  to  consider  the  whole  state  of 
humiliation  under  these  three  leading  aspects:  the  physical, 
the  ethical,  and  the  soteriological. 

Under  the  first  of  these  aspects  we  shall  have  to  consider 
the  bearing  of  the  category  of  humiliation  on  Christ's 
person.  The  Son  of  God  became  man,  the  Word  was  made 
flesh,  the  Eternally-begotten  was  born  in  time  of  the  Vir- 
gin; what  is  the  dogmatic  significance  of  these  facts  in 
reference  to  the  person  of  the  Incarnate  One  ? 

Under  the  second  aspect,  the  ethical,  we  shall  have  an 
opportunity  of  contemplating  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  as 
the  subject  of  a  human  experience  involving  moral  trial, 
and  supplying  a  stimulus  to  moral  development.  Christ 
was  tempted  in  all  points  like  as  we  are,  and  He  was  per- 
fected by  suffering;  in  what  sense,  and  to  what  extent,  can 

1  Quaestio  37 '.  Quid  credis,  cum  dicis,  passus  est?  Eum  todo  quidem  vitae 
suae  tempore  quo  in  terra  egit,  praecipue  vero  in  ejus  extremo,  iram  Dei  adversus 
peccatum  universi  generis  humani,  corpore  et  anima  sustinuisse. 


d 


8  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 


temptation  and  perfecting  be  predicated  of  One  who  was 
without  sin  ? 

Under  the  third  aspect  we  shall  have  to  consider  Christ 
as  a  servant,  under  law,  and  having  a  task  appointed 
Him,  involving  humiliating  experiences  various  in  kind 
and  degree. 

To  the  physical  aspect  four  lectures  will  be  devoted.  One 
will  treat  of  the  ancient  Christology,  the  formula  of  Chal- 
cedon  being  taken  as  the  view-point  for  our  historical  sur- 
vey; a  second,  of  the  Christologies  of  the  old  Lutheran  and 
Reformed  Confessions;  a  third,  of  the  modern  kenotic 
theories  of  Christ's  person;  a  fourth,  of  modern  humanistic 
views  of  Christ's  person,  which  practically  evacuate  the 
idea  of  the  Humiliation  of  all  significance  by  regarding  the 
Subject  thereof  merely  as  a  man,  whether  as  the  Perfect 
Ideal  Man,  or,  as  in  the  case  of  the  naturalistic  school  of 
theologians,  not  even  so  much  as  that.1  The  other  two 
aspects  of  our  Lord's  humiliation  will  occupy  each  a  sin- 
gle lecture. 

1  This  lecture  was  not  delivered,  and  appears  in  this  edition  for  the  first  time. 


LECTURE  II. 

THE    PATRISTIC    CHRISTOLOGY. 

The  Christology  of  the  ancient  Church  took  final  shape  at 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon,  A.  D.  451,  in  the  following  for- 
mula:— "  Following  the  holy  Fathers,  we  all  with  one 
consent  teach  and  confess  one  and  the  same  Son,  our  Lord 
Jesus  Christ,  the  same  perfect  in  Deity,  and  the  same  per- 
fect in  humanity,  truly  God,  and  the  same  truly  man,  of 
reasonable  soul  and  body,  of  the  same  substance  with  the 
Father  as  to  His  divinity,  of  the  same  substance  with  us 
as  to  His  humanity;  in  all  things  like  to  us,  except  sin; 
before  the  ages  begotten  of  the  Father  as  to  His  Deity, 
but  in  the  latter  days  for  us,  and  for  our  redemption,  begot- 
ten (the  same)  of  the  Virgin  Mary,  the  mother  of  God,  as 
to  His  humanity;  one  and  the  same  Christ,  Son,  Lord,  Only- 
begotten,  manifested  in  two  natures,  without  confusion, 
without  conversion,  indivisibly,  inseparably.  The  distinc- 
tion of  natures  being  by  no  means  abolished  by  the  union, 
but  rather  the  property  of  each  preserved  and  combined 
into  one  person  and  one  hypostasis;  not  one  severed  or 
divided  into  two  persons,  but  one  and  the  same  Son  and 
Only-begotten,  viz.  God,  Logos,  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ."1 

1  "Eva  xai  zov  avzov  ojiioAcyelv  viov  zov  xvpiov  rj/udov  'Irjdovv 
Xpi6zov  6vuq>K>vo3i  ditdvz£%  hx8i8a6xoiiEV,  zsXsiov,  zov  avzov  hv 
Beoztjzi,  xai  zsXelov,  zov  avzov  hv  dvBpwnozrjzi-  o/uoovdiov  zc3 
Ttazpi  xazd  zr/v  Bsozrjza,  xai  6/lcoov6iov  zov  avzov  t/jluv  xazd  zijv 
dvbpwnozrfza,  xazd  itdvza  o/ioiov  t//.iIv  xoopii  djiiapziaS  .  .  .  ex  Ma~ 
pia?  zrji  itapBivov,  zrji  Beozohov  .  .  .  eva  xai  zov  avzov  Xpi6z6v, 
hx  dvajv  a>v6Eoov  (a/,  hv  8vo  q>v6s6iv)  a6vyxvzoozi  dzpi.nzoozy  aStat- 


4.C  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

This  famous  creed,  formulated  by  the  Fourth  General 
Council,  was  the  fruit  of  two  great  controversies,  the  Apol- 
linarian  and  the  Nestorian;  the  one  having  reference  to  the 
integrity  of  our  Lord's  humanity,  the  other  to  the  unity  of 
erson.  In  these  two  controversies  allparties  may  be 
said  to  have  been  animated  by  an  orthodox  interest,  and 
to  have  been  sincerely  desirous  to  hold  fast  and  establish 
the  Catholic  faith.  All  accepted  cordially  the  Nicaean 
Creed,  and  sought  to  construct  a  Christology  on  a  Trin- 
in  foundation.  These  remarks  apply  even  to  Apolli- 
naris,  who,  however  much  he  may  have  failed  in  his  at- 
tempt at  a  construction  of  Christ's  person,  seems  to  have 
meant  that  attempt  to  be  a  defence  of  the  Christian  doctrine 
of  the  Incarnation  against  its  assailants.  He  was  a  man 
held  in  high  esteem  by  his  contemporaries  for  his  learning, 
piety,  and  eminent  services  to  the  cause  of  truth,  till  in  his 
old  age  he  promulgated  his  peculiar  Christological  theory. 
Epiphanius  speaks  of  him  as  one  who  had  always  been 
beloved  by  himself,  Athanasius,  and  all  the  orthodox;  so 
that  when  he  first  got  tidings  of  the  new  heresy,  he  could 
hardly  believe  that  such  a  doctrine  could  emanate  from 
such  a  man.1  He  had  done  excellent  service  as  champion 
of  the  Nicaean  symbol  against  the  Arians,  and  had  given 
a  still  more  conclusive  proof  of  his  zeal  in  that  cause  by 
suffering  exile  on  account  of  his  opposition  to  the  Arian 
heresy.2 

The  theory  of  Christ's  person  propounded  by  Apollinaris 
was  this,  that  the  humanity  of  Christ  did  not  consist  of  a 
reasonable  soul  and  body,  as  in  other  men,  but  of  flesh  and 
an  animal  soul  without  mind,  the  place  of  mind  being 
supplied  in  His  case  by  the  Logos.  Of  the  inner  genesis 
of  this  theory  in  its  author's  mind  we  have  no  accounts, 
and  we  can  only  conjecture  what  were  its  hidden  roots. 
Among  these  may  probably  be  reckoned  familiarity  with, 

pezooi  ax^opiOrooi  yvaopi^ojjsyov  ovSauou  zf>'.  rdv  <pvtiEoov  SiacpopaS 
dYrfpTfuiviji  did  zi)v  'ivw6iv,  6oo^o/.tev^i  8e  /.iScWov  zif?  idiozrjzoi  kxa- 
zepaS  qjv6ea>i,  xai  el*  f'v  Ttp66oonov  xai  uiav  v%66za6iv  6vvzpexov- 
6i)i,  ovx  sii  Svo  Ttpo6oo7ca  fiepiCouEvov  r/  SiaipnviiEvov,  dXX'  iva  xai 
zov  avzov  viov,  xai  novoyivrj  (-Jeov  Xoyov  Kvptov'lt}6ovv  Xpidrov 

1  Adv.  Haereses,  lib.  iii.  torn,  ii.;  Dimoeritat,  c.  2,  see  also  c.  24. 

*  Adv.  Haereses,  lib.  iii.  torn,  ii.:   Dimoeritae,  c.  24. 


The  Patristic    Christology.  41 

and  partiality  for,  classic  Greek  literature,  and  more  espe- 
cially the  works  of  Plato;1  antagonism  on  other  matters  to 
Origen,  the  first  among  the  early  Fathers  to  give  prom- 
inence to  the  doctrine  that  Christ's  humanity  was  endowed 
with  a  rational  soul,  predisposing  to  a  diverse  way  of  think- 
ing on  that  particular  subject  likewise;  and  above  all,  de- 
termined hostility  to  the  opinions  concerning  the  person  of 
the  Saviour,  characteristic  of  the  Arian  heretics.  So  far  as 
one  can  judge  from  contemporary  representations,  and  from 
the  fragments  of  the  work  on  the  Incarnation  which  have 
been  preserved,  the  Apollinarian  theory  was  attractive  to 
the  mind  of  its  inventor  chiefly  on  these  accounts:  as  en- 
abling him  to  combat  successfully  the  Arian  doctrine  of  the 
fallibility  of  Christ;  as  ensuring  the  unity  of  the  person  of 
Christ,  with  which  the  doctrine  of  the  integrity  of  His  hu- 
manity seemed  incompatible;  and  as  making  the  Incarna- 
tion a  great  reality  for  God,  involving  subjection  of  the  di- 
vine nature  to  the  experience  of  suffering.  As  to  the  first, 
the  Arian  doctrine  of  the  person  of  Christ  was,  that  in  the 
historical  person  called  Christ  appeared  in  human  flesh  the 
very  exalted,  in  a  sense  divine,  creature  named  in  Scripture 
the  Logos, — the  Logos  taking  the  place  of  a  human  soul, 
and  being  liable  to  human  infirmity,  and  even  to  sin,  inas- 
much as,  however  exalted,  He  was  still  a  creature,  therefore 
finite,  therefore  fallible,  rpejrrJ?,  capable  of  turning,  in  the 
abuse  of  freedom,  from  good  to  evil.  Apollinaris  accepted 
the  Arian  method  of  constructing  the  person,  by  the  ex- 
clusion of  a  rational  human  soul,  and  used  it  as  a  means  of 
obviating  the  Arian  conclusion,  which  was  revolting  to  his 
religious  feelings.  His  reply  to  the  Arian  was  in  effect 
this:  "  Christ  is,  as  you  say,  the  Logos  appearing  in  the 
flesh  and  performing  the  part  of  a  human  soul;  but  the 
Logos   is  not  a  creature,    as    you    maintain;    He  is    truly 

1  An  interesting  evidence  of  this  is  supplied  in  the  fact,  that  when  the  Emperor 
Julian  interdicted  the  reading  of  the  classic  poets  and  orators  in  the  Christian 
schools,  in  the  year  362,  Apollinaris,  along  with  his  father,  set  himself  to  provide 
a  kindred  literature  in  the  shape  of  versions  of  the  Scriptures,  the  father  taking 
up  the  Old  Testament,  and  turning  the  Pentateuch  into  heroic  verse,  in  imitation 
of  Homer,  and  doing  other  portions  into  comedies,  tragedies,  and  lyrics,  in  imita- 
tion of  Menander,  Euripides,  and  Pindar;  while  the  son  took  up  the  New  Testa- 
ment, and  turned  the  Gospels  and  Epistles  into  dialogues,  in  the  style  of  Plato. 


42  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

divine,  eternally  begotten,  not  made,  and  therefore  morally 
infallible."  In  no  other  way  did  it  seem  to  him  possible 
to  escape  the  Arian  mutability  {vpenrov),  for  he  not  only 
admitted  the  fallibility  of  all  creatures,  however  exalted, 
but  he  believed  that  in  human  beings  at  least  a  rational 
soul,  endowed  with  intelligence  and  freedom,  not  only  may, 
but  must  inevitably  fall  into  sin.  Freedom,  in  fact,  usually 
supposed  to  be  a  distinction  of  the  human  mind,  exalting 
it  in  the  scale  of  being  above  the  lower  animal  creation, 
was  in  his  view  an  evil  to  be  got  rid  of, — and  accordingly 
he  sought  to  get  rid  of  it,  in  the  case  of  Christ,  by  denying 
that  He  had  a  human  mind,  and  ascribing  to  Him  only  an 
immutable  divine  mind  which,  to  quote  his  own  words, 
"  should  not  through  defect  of  knowledge  be  subject  to  the 
flesh,  but  should  without  effort  bring  the  flesh  into  harmony 
with  itself"1  (as  its  passive  instrument). 

As  to  the  second  advantage  believed  to  be  gained  by  the 
theory,  that,  viz.,  of  securing  the  unity  of  Christ's  person, 
Apollinaris  contended  that,  on  the  supposition  of  the  two 
natures  being  perfect,  the  unity  could  not  be  maintained. 
"  If,"  said  he,  "  to  perfect  man  be  joined  perfect  God,  there 
are  two,  not  one:  one,  the  Son  of  God  by  nature;  another, 
the  Son  of  God  by  adoption."8  On  the  other  hand,  he  held 
that  his  theory  gave  one  person,  who  was  at  once  perfect 
man  and  perfect  God,  the  two  natures  not  being  concrete 
separable  things,  but  two  aspects  of  the  same  person. 
Christ  was  true  God,  for  He  was  the  eternal  Logos  mani- 
fest in  the  flesh.  He  was  also  true  man,  for  human  nature 
consists  of  three  component  elements,  body,  animal  soul, 
and  spirit,  and  all  these  were  combined,  according  to  the 

1  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  Adv.  Apollinarem,  c.  40.  The  words  of  Apollinaris  are: 
Dvh  dpa  6ojZsrai  to  dvbpoomvov  yivoS  67  avaAt'/ipSGoS  vov,  uai  o\ov 
iivfjfjoj7tov,  dXXd  did  7tpo6\r/ipea)S  6apu6i,  %  cpv6ixdv  uiv  to  r/yeuo- 
vf.vedQai  (whose  nature  it  is  to  be  ruled)  fdsiro  8e  (XTpiitTov  vov,  jutj  \.no- 
'r/TTTovToi  avT-fl  Sid  iTti6Trjiio6vvi)i  a.6rJ£VFiav,  dXXd  6vvapu6ZovToS 
avTrjv  d(jia6iGDi  ecxvTcp.  All  the  accounts  of  the  views  of  Apollinaris  agree 
in  ascribing  to  him  the  strange,  almost  Manichaean,  doctrine,  that  freedom,  the 
attribute  of  a  rational  soul,  necessarily  involved  sin.  Vid.  Athanasius,  De  Incar- 
ndiione  Christi  (near  the  beginning):  offou  ydp  tsAsioS  dvbpoano'i  (complete 
man,  metaphysically)  kxei  ncci  diiapTia;  also  De  Salutari  Adventu  yesu 
Christi,  sub  init.     Epiphanius,  Adv.  Haereses,  1.  iii.  t.  ii.;  Dimoeritae,  c.  26. 

*  Greg.  cc.  39,  42. 


The  Patristic    Christology.  43 

theory,  in  the  person  of  Christ;  while,  on  the  common  the- 
ory, there  were  four  things  combined  in  Him,  whereby  He 
became  not  a  man,  but  a  man-God,1  a  monstrum,  resem- 
bling the  fabulous  animals  of  Greek  mythology.  True,  it 
might  be  objected  that  the  third  element  in  the  person  of 
Christ,  the  nous,  was  not  human  but  divine.  But  Apolli- 
naris  was  ready  with  his  reply.  "  The  mind  in  Christ,"  he 
said  in  effect,  "  is  at  once  divine  and  human;  the  Logos  is 
at  once  the  express  image  of  God  and  the  prototype  of  hu- 
manity." This  appears  to  be  what  he  meant  when  he  as- 
serted that  the  humanity  of  Christ  was  eternal, — a  part  of 
his  system  which  was  much  misunderstood  by  his  oppo- 
nents, who  supposed  it  to  have  reference  to  the  body  of 
Christ.2  There  is  no  reason  to  believe  that  Apollinaris 
meant  to  teach  that  our  Lord's  flesh  was  eternal,  and  that 
He  brought  it  with  Him  from  heaven,  and  therefore  was 
not  really  born  of  the  Virgin  Mary;  though  some  of  his  ad- 
herents may  have  held  such  opinions.  His  idea  was,  that 
Christ  was  the  celestial  man;  celestial,  because  divine;  man, 
not  merely  as  God  incarnate,  but  because  the  Divine  Spirit 
is  at  the  same  time  essentially  human.  In  the  combination 
whereby  Christ's  person  was  constituted  there  was  thus 
nothing  incongruous,  though  there  was  something  unique; 
the  divine  being  fitted  in  its  own  nature,  and  having,  as  it 
were,  a  yearning  to  become  man.  This  was  the  speculative 
element  in  the  Apollinarian  theory  misapprehended  by 
contemporaries,  better  understood,  and  in  some  quarters 
more  sympathized  with,  now.3 

The  third  advantage  accruing  from  his  theory,  that  of 
making  God  in  very  deed  the  subject  of  a  suffering  human 
experience,  Apollinaris  reckoned  of  no  less  value  than  the 
other  two.     It  seemed  to  him  of  fundamental  importance, 

1  Greg.  c.  49. 

*  So  Gregory  Nys.,  Athanasius,  and  Epiphanius:  in  the  works  referred  to  in 
previous  note. 

3  See  Domer,  Person  of  Christ,  div.  i.  vol.  ii.  p.  372  (Clark's  translation). 
Dorner's  account  of  the  Apollinarian  theory  is  very  full,  able,  and  candid,  and, 
as  far  as  I  can  judge,  satisfactory;  though,  as  we  have  only  fragments  to  judge  from, 
there  must  always  be  uncertainty  on  some  points.  For  passages  out  of  the  work 
of  Apollinaris  bearing  on  the  subject  of  the  affinity  of  the  divine  and  the  human 
natures,  see  cap.  48-55  in  Greg.  Adv.  Apoll.  Baur's  account  (Die  Lehre  von 
der  Dreieinigkeit,  vol.  i.)  is  less  reliable. 


44  The  Humiliation  of  Christ* 

in  a  soteriological  point  of  view,  that  the  person  of  Christ 
should  be  so  conceived  of,  that  everything  belonging  to 
His  earthly  history,  both  the  miracles  and  the  sufferings, 
should  be  predicable  directly  and  exclusively  of  the  divine 
element  in  Him.  On  this  account  he  was  equally  opposed 
to  the  Photinian  and  to  the  ordinary  orthodox  view  of 
Christ's  person:  to  the  former,  because  it  made  Christ  merely 
a  divine  man  (avQpaoxoS  evQeoi),1  the  human,  not  the  divine, 
being  the  personal  element;  to  the  latter,  because  it  virtu- 
ally divided  Christ  into  two  persons,  a  divine  and  a  human, 
referring  to  the  divine  only  the  miracles  of  power  and 
knowledge,  and  ascribing  to  the  human  everything  of  the 
nature  of  suffering.  On  either  theory,  it  appeared  to  him, 
the  end  of  the  Incarnation  remained  unaccomplished;  man 
was  not  redeemed,  unless  it  could  be  said  that  God  tasted 
death.  A  man  liable  to  the  common  corruption  cannot 
save  the  world;  neither  can  we  be  saved,  even  by  God,  un- 
less He  mix  with  us.  He  must  become  an  impeccable  man, 
and  die,  and  rise  again,  and  so  destroy  the  empire  of  death 
over  all;  He  must  die  as  God,  for  the  death  of  a  mere  man 
does  not  destroy  death,  but  only  the  death  of  one  over 
whom  death  cannot  prevail.2  Such  thoughts  as  these  ap- 
peared to  Apollinaris  arguments  in  favour  of  his  theory; 
for  he  maintained  that  on  the  common  theory  the  divine 
had  really  no  part  in  Christ's  sufferings;3  a  statement  not 
without  some  plausibility  in  reference  to  the  orthodox 
Fathers,  whose  views  regarding  the  impassibility  of  the  di- 
vine nature  were  very  rigid.  To  rectify  this  defect  was  a 
leading,  we  may  say  the  leading,  aim  of  the  new  Christol- 
ogy.  Gregory  of  Nyssa,  in  his  polemical  treatise  against 
Apollinaris,  states  that  the  whole  scope  of  the  work  in 
which  the  latter  promulgated  his  opinions  was  to  make  the 
deity  of  the  only-begotten  Son  mortal,  and  to  show  that 
not  the  human  in  Christ  endured  suffering,  but  the  impassi- 

1  Greg.  c.  6:  To  ai'typoortov  £yrjsov  toy  Xpi6vov  ovo/idZeiv,  kvavriov 
tivai  ralS  <xTto6ro\iHa.1S  8t8a6HaXiaiS'  aWorpiov  Si  ra>v  6vv68gjv' 
IJavAoy  8s  (of  Samosata)  xai  <Pgdteiv6i'  xai  MdpxeA.Xov  zijs  zoiavrr?? 
Sia6zpoq>TJlS  xazdpiai  (these  men  began  this  perverse  way  of  speaking  of 
I 

'  Greg.  cap.  51,  52.  3  Greg.  cap.  27. 


The  Patristic    Christology.  \S 

ble  and  unchangeable  nature  in  Him,  converted  to  partici- 
pation in  suffering.1 

It  is  easy  to  understand  what  a  fascination  a  theory  like 
the  foregoing  would  have  for  a  speculative  mind;  nor  are 
we  surprised  to  learn  that,  on  its  being  promulgated,  it  was 
received  with  enthusiasm  by  many.  It  was  a  theory  whose 
appearance  in  the  course  of  doctrinal  development  was  to 
be  looked  for,  and  in  some  respects  even  to  be  desired;  and 
it  could  not  have  an  author  and  advocate  better  qualified 
by  his  gifts  and  character  to  do  it  full  justice,  and  secure 
for  it  the  respectful  and  serious  consideration  of  the  Church, 
than  it  found  in  Apollinaris.  Yet  the  defects  of  this  theory 
are  very  glaring.  One  radical  error  is  the  assumption  thafc 
to  get  rid  of  sin  we  must  get  rid  of  a  human  mind  in  Christ. 
Gregory  of  Nyssa,  referring  to  the  apostolic  dictum, 
"  tempted  in  all  points  like  as  we  are,  without  sin,"  very  per- 
tinently remarks,  parenthetically,  "but  mind  is  not  sin."* 
If  it  be  sin,  then,  to  be  consistent,  the  theory  ought  to  take 
away  mind  not  merely  from  Christ,  but  from  human  nature 
itself.  Yet  Apollinaris  is  so  far  from  doing  this,  that  he 
represents  mind  (vovs)  as  the  leading  element  in  human 
nature  (to  xvpioorarov).3  It  is  because  vovi  is  rci  Kvptoorarov 
that  its  omission  is  necessary  in  order  to  secure  the  unity 
of  Christ's  person.  If  Christ  consists  of  two  perfect,  that 
is,  complete,  unmutilated  natures,  then,  according  to  Apolli- 
naris, He  is  two  persons,  not  one.  It  thus  appears  that  to 
the  metapJiysical  perfection  of  human  nature  vovz  is  indis- 
pensable, while  for  its  moral  perfection  the  removal  of  the 
same  element  is  equally  indispensable;  a  view  which  on  the 
one  hand  involves  a  Manichaean  attitude  towards  the  first 
creation,  and  on  the  other  hand  makes  a  theory  of  sanctifi- 
cation  impossible.  The  old  man  is  inevitably  bad  because 
he  is  free;  and  the  new  man  is  to  be  made  good,  either  by 
the  mutilation  of  his  nature,  or  by  a  magical  overbearing 
cf  his  nature  by  divine  power. 

Another  manifest  defect  in  the  theory  is,  that  it  adopts 

'  Greg.  cap.  5. 

s  Cap.  11:  6  di  vovi  duapria  ovh  edzt. 

3  Greg.  Nys.  Adv.  Apoll.  c.  23:  Christ  was  ovh  avSpGJ7to?,  d\\'  caS  ar- 

3/3GJ7TOS  dlOTl  OVH  OUOOV6lOi  TCp  dvrJpODTZ(p  Hard   TO  HVpiGQTCtT OV. 


46  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

means  for  excluding  the  possibility  of  sin  in  Christ,  whick 
defeat  another  of  its  own  chief  ends,  that,  viz.,  of  making 
the  Divine  partaker  of  suffering.  Place  is  found  for  the 
physical  fact  of  death,  but  no  place  is  found  for  the  moral 
suffering  connected  with  temptation.  Christ  is  so  carefully 
guarded  from  sin,  that  He  is  not  even  allowed  to  know 
what  it  is  to  be  tempted  to  sin.  The  author  of  the  theory 
is  so  frightened  by  that  Arian  scarecrow,  the  rpenrov,  that 
he  solves  the  problem  of  Christ's  sinlessness  by  annihilating 
the  conditions  under  which  the  problem  has  to  be  worked 
out.  There  is  no  human  nous,  no  freedom,  no  struggle;  the 
fragment  of  human  nature  assumed  yields  itself  passively 
to  the  sweet  control  of  the  Divine  Spirit,  which  dwells 
within  it  as  its  active  principle;  '  the  so-called  temptations 
and  struggles  recorded  in  the  Gospels  are  reduced  to  a  show 
and  a  sham,  and  a  cheap  virtue  results,  devoid  of  all  human 
interest,  and  scarcely  deserving  the  name.  It  is  true 
Apollinaris  did  what  he  could  to  prevent  this  consequence, 
and  to  make  Deity  enter  fully  and  really  into  the  conditions 
of  human  life,  by  regarding  the  Incarnation  as  involving 
for  the  Logos  a  self-division  (diaiptdis),  by  which  He  en- 
tered into  an  inequality  with  Himself,  and  was  at  once  in- 
finite and  finite,  impassible  and  capable  of  becoming  par- 
taker in  human  sufferings  and  conflicts;  not,  however,  by  a 
physical  necessity,  but  by  a  free  act  of  love.2  But  this  de- 
vice of  a  double  aspect  in  the  Logos  falls  short  of  the  pur- 
pose. To  arrive  at  the  result  aimed  at — a  real  and  full 
participation  in  suffering, — the  theory  must  go  further,  and 

1  Greg.  Nys.  Adv.  Apoll.  c.  41:  dftiddTcoZ,  (pridi,  t?)v  ddpxa  7}  SeotjjS 
TtpoddyETai.  Gregory  takes  afliddrooi  as  meaning  freely:  to  dfiiadTov, 
St/Xadr},  to  'exivdiov  Xe'yet.  But  Apollinaris  uses  the  word  to  express  the 
pliancy  of  the  flesh,  resulting  from  its  having  no  will  of  its  own.  The  flesh  was 
literally  as  clay  in  the  hands  of  the  Logos  as  the  Potter. 

*  Such  seems  to  be  the  meaning  of  the  following  obscure  extracts  from  Apolli- 
naris in  Gregory's  work,  c.  29:  Aiaip&iv  fiiv  ti)v  tvepyeiav  xavd  dapxa, 
ictdaiv  8s  xara  nvevua  .  .  .  "Qnsp  ex£l  TVV  tv  Swd/iei  itdXiv  ido- 
T7]Ta  xai  tt)v  xara  ddpxa  ttjZ  tvEpyeiai  diaipadiv  c.  58:  '0  IZcoTTip 
7t£7tovrJE  itElvav,  xai  Siipav,  xai  xduaTov,  xai  dyooviav,  xai  Xvttvv 
.  .  .  Kai  Ttadxzi  to  drtapddtxTov  7tdf)ov?,  ovx  avdyxp  (pvdsaos  dftov- 
At'/tov,  xarJa7tep  avfJpconoS,  aXXa  dxoXovOiqc  cpvdSGO?.  Gregory  looks 
upon  the  words  from  ovx  dvdyxrj  as  unintelligible,  and  asks  what  is  the  differ- 
ence between  necessity  of  nature  and  consequence  of  nature. 


The  Patristic    Christology.  47 

convert  the  Logos  into  an  ordinary  human  soul,  having  the 
advantage  of  starting  on  its  career  free  from  sinful  bias,  but 
exposed  like  other  souls  to  temptation,  and  possessing  only 
a  power  not  to  sin  {posse  non  peccare),  and  this  would  bring 
it  round  to  meet  the  opposite  extreme,  the  hated  Arian 
fallibility. 

The  argument  against  the  Apollinarian  theory  was  con- 
ducted by  the  Fathers  chiefly  from  a  soteriological  point  of 
view.  Gregory  Nazianzen  put  the  matter  in  a  nut-shell 
when  he  said:  "  That  which  is  not  assumed  is  not  healed."  ' 
The  patristic  theory  of  redemption  was,  that  Christ  re- 
deemed man,  so  to  speak,  by  sample,  presenting  to  God  in 
His  own  person  the  first-fruits  of  a  renewed  humanity. 
Athanasius  contrasts  the  Apollinarian  and  the  orthodox 
theories  of  redemption  thus:  "Ye  say  that  believers  are 
saved  by  similitude  and  imitation,  not  by  renovation,  or  by 
first-fruits."  2  Salvation  being  by  first-fruits,  of  course  the 
Saviour  must  be  physically  like  His  brethren  in  soul  as 
well  as  in  body,  otherwise  the  sample  would  not  be  like 
the  bulk.  As  Cyril  put  it:  Christ  must  take  flesh  that  He 
might  deliver  us  from  death;  and  He  must  take  a  human 
soul  to  deliver  us  from  sin,  destroying  sin  in  humanity  by 
living  a  human  life  free  from  all  sin, — rendering  the  soul 
He  assumed  superior  to  sin  by  dyeing  it,  and  tinging  it 
with  the  moral  firmness  and  immutability  of  His  own  divine 
nature.3  But  while  insisting  on  this  view  of  salvation,  the 
opponents  of  Apollinaris  pointed  out  that  even  on  his  own 
soteriological  theory  it  behoved  Christ  to  assume  a  perfect 
humanity.  How,  asked  Athanasius  very  pertinently,  can 
there  be  imitation  tending  to  perfection  unless  there  be 
first  a  perfect  exemplar  ?  * 

•  Epist.  1,  ad  Cledonium:  to  ydp  dTtpo6Xijitvov  dhtpditEVTOY. 

2  De  Salutari  Adventu  yesu  Chris ti  (about  the  middle):  'AXXd  XiyevE  rf) 
6uoioo6ei  xai  r#  juiutJ6si  6c6'Z£6riai  zovS  7tidrevorraS,  xai  ov  ry  dva.' 
xaividsi,  xai  zij"  dnapxy- 

s  De  Incarnatione  Unigenili,  torn.  viii.  Opera,  Migne,  p.  1214. 

4  De  Incarnatione  Christi  (near  the  beginning):  ui/.ir/di?  8s  7ta>?  dv  yivoivo 
npoS  TsXsioTtyra,  jutj  npovita.p'ia6T]Z  rrjs  dvevdeovi  reXeiozrjroi.  On 
the  Apollinarian  I  heory  of  redemption,  see  Dorner,  who,  in  opposition  to  Baur  and 
M&hler,  denies  that  it  was  a  mere  doctrine  of  imitation.  Cyril  seems  to  have 
looked  on  it  in  this  light,  for  in  the  Dialogue  on  the  Incarnation  he  makes  one 


4S  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

The  Nestorian  controversy,  which  broke  out  about  half 
a  century  after  the  death  of  Apollinaris,1  may  be  regarded 
as  the  natural  sequel  of  the  controversy  concerning  the  in- 
tegrity of  Christ's  humanity,  whereof  a  brief  account  has 
just  been  given.  The  Church,  by  the  voice  of  Councils  and 
of  its  representative  men,  having  declared  in  favour  of  a 
complete  unmutilated  humanity,  the  next  question  calling 
for  decision  was,  How  do  the  two  natures  in  Christ,  the 
divine  and  the  human,  stand  related  to  each  other  ?  On 
this  momentous  question  the  Antioch  school  of  theologians 
took  up  a  position  diametrically  opposed  to  that  of  Apolli- 
naris. Whereas  Apollinaris  had  sacrificed  the  integrity  of 
Christ's  humanity  for  the  sake  of  the  unity  of  His  person, 
the  Syrian  theologians,  represented  by  Theodore  of  Mop- 
suestia,  and  by  his  pupils,  Xestorius,  patriarch  of  Constan- 
tinople, and  Theodoret,  bishop  of  Cyrus,  seemed  disposed 
to  sacrifice  the  unity  of  the  person  in  favour  of  the  integrity 
of  the  humanity.  Their  attitude  was  substantially  this: 
they  were  determined  at  all  hazards  to  hold  by  the  reality 
of  the  two  factors,  and  especially  of  the  humanity,  the 
latter  being  the  thing  assailed;  and  to  admit  only  such  a 
union  as  was  compatible  with  such  reality.  Christ  must 
be  a  man,  at  all  events,  whatever  more;  a  man  in  all  re- 
spects, save  sin,  like  other  men,  having  a  true  body,  a 
reasonable  soul,  and  a  free  will,  liable  to  temptation,  and 
capable  of  real,  not  merely  apparent,  growth,  not  only  in 
stature,  but  in  wisdom  and  virtue.  Such  was  the  Christ 
they  found  in  the  New  Testament,  such  the  Christ  who 
could  lay  hold  of  human  sympathies;  in  such  a  Christ, 
therefore,  they  were  determined  to  believe,  both  as  men 
devoted  to  exegetical  studies,  and  as  men  of  an  ethical 
rather  than  a  theological  bent  of  mind. 

With  the  resolute  maintenance  of  the  reality  of  Christ's 
manhood,  the  theologians  of  Antioch  did  not  find  it  possible 
to  accept  of  any  union  of  the  natures,  except  one  of  an 

of  the  interlocutors  ask:  "  What  if  they  should  say  that  our  state  needed  only  the 
sojourning  of  the  Only-begotten  among  us  ?  but  as  He  wished  to  be  seen  of  mor- 
tals, and  to  have  intercourse  with  men,  and  to  show  to  us  the  way  of  evangelic 
life,  He  put  on  (economically)  flesh  like  ours,  as  the  divine  in  its  own  nature 
cannot  be  seen." — Cy.  Op.,  Migne,  viii.  p.  1212. 
'  Between  380  and  392  a.  d.  ;  exact  date  uncertain. 


The  Patristic    Christology.  49 

ethical  character.  They  rejected  a  physical  union  {Jvoo6i<, 
natf  ov6i<xv)  because  it  seemed  to  them  inevitably  to  involve 
a  mixture  of  natures  (xpa6ti),  and  therefore  to  lead  either 
to  a  dissipation  of  the  humanity,  or  to  a  degradation  of  the 
unchangeable  divine  element,  or  to  both.  In  his  animadver- 
sions on  the  second  of  Cyril's  twelve  anathemas  against 
Nestorius  (which  condemns  those  who  deny  a  union  by 
hypostasis,  hypostasis  being  taken  in  the  sense  of  substance), 
Theodoret  says:  "  If  by  union  (««?'  vn66ra6iv')  he  means 
that  a  mixture  of  flesh  and  Deity  has  taken  place,  we  con- 
fidently contradict  him,  and  charge  him  with  blasphemy. 
For  of  necessity  confusion  follows  mixture;  and  confusion 
ensuing,  destroys  the  properties  of  either  nature.  For 
things  mixed  do  not  remain  what  they  were  before.  But  if 
mixture  took  place,  God  did  not  remain  God,  nor  could  the 
temple  (His  humanity)  be  recognised  as  a  temple;  but  God 
was  temple,  and  temple  was  God."  1  From  jealousy  of  this 
mixture,  supposed  to  be  taught  by  their  opponents,  the 
Antiochlans  disliked  the  term  Oeoroxos  (mother  of  God)  ap- 
plied to  the  mother  of  our  Lord,  which  was  the  occasion  of  the 
outbreak  of  the  controversy,  and  became  famous  as  the  battle- 
cry  of  orthodoxy  in  the  fierce  war  against  Nestorian  heretics. 
They  did  not  absolutely  deny  the  applicability  of  the  epithet ; 
but  they  looked  on  it  with  disfavour,  as  extremely  liable  to 
abuse,  and  fitted  to  create  the  erroneous  impression  that 
the  Word  literally  became  flesh;  and  they  preferred  to  give 
Mary  the  title  of  Xpi6tot6kos  (mother  of  Christ),  and  to 
Christ  Himself  the  title  Osocpopos  (God-bearer);  their  idea  of 
the  Incarnation  being  that  Mary  gave  birth  to  a  human 
being,  to  whom,  from  the  first  moment  of  His  conception, 
the  Logos  joined  Himself.2  This  union,  formed  at  the 
earliest  possible  period,  between  the  Logos  and  the  man 
Jesus,  those  who  followed  the  Nestorian  tendency  described 

Cyril.  Apologeticus  contra  Theodoretitm,  pro.  xii.  capitibus,  Anath.  ii. 
2  Cyril  quotes  Nestorius,  saying:  If  any  simple  person  likes  to  call  Mary  Qeo- 
TOHoi,  I  don't  object;  only  don't  let  him  call  the  Virgin  a  goddess,  uovov  hi) 
noisirao  ttjy  ndpBsvov  Seav. — Adv.  Nestorium  (Cy.  Op.,  Migne,  t.  ix.  p.  57). 
Nestorius  was  jealous  of  the  heathenish  tendency  of  the  name,  mother  of  God,  not 
without  reason.  Theodoret,  in  his  animadversions  on  Anathema  i.,  condemning 
those  who  deny  to  Mary  the  title  ©eoroxoi,  apologises  for  those  who  had  been 
jealous  of  the  word  by  saying,  "  We,  following  the  Gospel  statemert,  assert  that 
God  the  Word  was  not  naturally  made  flesh,  or  changed  into  flesh,  but  He  as 


5o  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

by  a  variety  of  phrases,  all  proceeding  on  the  idea  of  ar 
ethical  as  opposed  to  a  physical  union.  They  called  it  an 
inhabitation;1  and  the  general  nature  of  the  inhabitation, 
as  distinct  from  that  by  which  God  dwells  in  all  men, 
through  His  omnipresent  essence  and  energy,  they  indi- 
cated by  the  phrase,  "  by  good  pleasure  "  {xaV  evdoxiav); 
and  this  indwelling  by  good  pleasure  in  Christ  they  further 
discriminated  from  God's  indwelling  in  other  good  men,  by 
representing  it  as  attaining  in  Him  the  highest  possible 
degree.  This  indwelling  of  the  Logos  in  Christ  was  also 
said  to  be  according  to  fore-knowledge,2  the  Logos  choosing 
the  man  Jesus  to  be  in  a  peculiar  sense  His  temple,  because 
He  knew  beforehand  what  manner  of  man  He  should  be. 
Such  was  the  way  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia,  in  particular, 
viewed  the  union.  Among  other  favourite  phrases  current 
in  the  same  school  were  such  as  these:  union  by  conjunc- 
tion;3 union  by  relation,4  as  in  the  case  of  husband  and  wife; 
union  in  worth,  honour,  authority;5  union  by  consent  of 
will;6  union  by  community  of  name;'  and  so  forth;  for  it 
were  endless  to  enumerate  the  Nestorian  tropes  or  modes 
of  union. 

It  is  manifest  from  these  and  the  like  phrases  that  the 
Nestorian  manner  of  conceiving  the  person  of  Christ  really 
involved  a  duality  of  persons.  In  Christ  were  united  by 
physical  juxtaposition  and  ethical  affinity  two  persons:  one, 
the  Son  of  God  by  nature;  the  other,  a  Son  of  God  by 
adoption.  Yet  Nestorius  and  his  friends  did  not  wish  to 
teach  a  duality  of  persons  or  of  sons,  and  would  not  allow 
their  opponents  to  represent  them  as  teaching  such  a 
doctrine.  Their  position  as  defined  by  themselves  was: 
there  are  two  hypostases,  but  only  one  person  (itp66G07tov), 
one  Son,  one  Christ.8     Nestorius,  as  quoted  by  his  great 

sumed  flesh,  and  tabernacled  among  us,  according  to  the  word  of  the  evangelist, 
and  the  teaching  of  Paul,  when  he  speaks  of  Christ  taking  the  form  of  servant 
{liopcpj}v  SovXov  Xafiaov)." — Cyril.  Apolog.  contra  Theodoret.  Anath.  i.  Op. 
Migne,  ix.  p.  392.  '   lvoiHt/6tl>. 

2  Kara  itpoyvoiav.  3  6vvaq>£ia.  4  evoodiS  dx£ttHW- 

8  rar'  d'ciav,  naV  ouorifiiav,  KaV  av'uvriav, 

6  Mara  ravrofiovXiav.  "  ua^  uiicsvv^iav. 

8  Cyril.  Apolog.  contra  Theodoret.  Anath.  iii.:  ev  uev  Ttp66co7tov  uai  eva 
TTidv  nai  Xpidrov  buoXoy  tlv  ev6efje?-  dvo  8s  raS  evGo0ei6aS  V7to0rd~ 
GtiS,  ei'rovv  q>v<5eil,  Xeyeiv  ovh  aroitov,  dXXd  xar  airiav  dxoXovOor 


The  Patristic    Christology.  5i 

opponent  Cyril,  said:  "  There  is  no  division  as  to  conjunc- 
tion, dignity,  Sonship,  or  as  to  participation  in  the  name 
Christ;  there  is  only  a  division  of  the  Deity  and  the  hu- 
manity. Christ  as  Christ  is  indivisible;  for  we  have  not 
two  Christs,  or  two  Sons:  there  is  not  with  us  a  first  and  a 
second,  nor  one  and  another,  nor  one  Son  and  another  Son; 
but  one  and  the  same  is  double,  not  in  dignity,  but  in 
nature."  J  Hence  the  question,  Were  Nestorius  and  those 
who  thought  with  him  Nestorians  in  the  theological  sense  ? 
may  be  answered  both  affirmatively  and  negatively:  nega- 
tively, if  you  look  to  what  they  said  they  held  and  honestly 
wished  to  hold;  affirmatively,  if  you  look  to  the  logical  consis- 
tency of  their  system.  They  made  Christ  as  much  an  indepen- 
dent, self-subsistent  man  as  if  He  were  altogether  distinct  from 
the  Logos;  they  described  the  union  between  Him  and  the 
Logos  by  phrases  implying  only  a  very  close  moral  af- 
finity; so  that  the  natural  inference  would  seem  to  be, 
that  the  Logos  was  personally  as  distinct  from  Jesus  as 
from  any  other  good  man,  though  more  closely  related 
to  Him  than  to  any  other  man.  But  they  refused  to 
draw  the  inference;  they  declared  there  were  not  in 
Christ  one  and  another  {aXXoi  xai  aWos),  but  only  one 
who  was  double. 

The  great  opponent  of  the  Antiochian  Christology,  Cyril, 
archbishop  of  Alexandria,  held  its  advocates  responsible 
for  the  logical  consequences  of  their  theory;  and  the  strong 
side  of  his  polemic  is  the  manner  in  which  he  brings  great 
principles  to  bear  against  the  doctrine  of  a  divided  person- 
ality. Specially  noticeable  is  the  use  which  he  makes  of 
the  idea  of  kenosis,  in  arguing  against  that  doctrine. 
Again  and  again  the  thought  recurs  in  his  various  contro- 
versial writings,  that  if  the  Logos  did  not  become  man,  but 
merely  assumed  a  man,  then  what  took  place  was  not  a 
kenosis  of  the  Divine  Subject,  but,  on  the  contrary,  an  ex- 
altation of  the  human  subject.  Thus,  in  one  place  he  says: 
"  If,  as  our  adversaries  think,  the  only-begotten  Word  of 
God,  taking  a  human  being  from  the  seed  of  David,  pro- 
cured that  He  should  be  formed  in  the  holy  Virgin,  and 
joined  Him  to   Himself,    and  caused   Him  to  experience 

1  Cyril.  Contra  Nestorium,  lib.  ii.  c.  v. 


52  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

death,  and,  raising  Him  from  the  dead,  conveyed  Him  up 
to  heaven,  and  seated  Him  on  the  right  hand  of  God, — ■ 
vainly,  in  that  case,  as  it  appears,  is  He  said  by  the  holy 
Fathers,  and  by  us,  and  by  all  inspired  Scripture,  to  have 
become  man;  for  this  and  nothing  else  John  means  when 
he  says,  the  Word  became  flesh  (J  \6yo<i  6dp'\  kyivezo).  For 
on  this  theory  the  whole  mystery  of  the  economy  in  the 
flesh  is  turned  to  the  contrary,  and  what  we  see  is  not  the 
Logos,  being  God  by  nature  and  coming  from  God,  letting 
Himself  down  to  kenosis,  taking  the  form  of  a  servant,  and 
humbling  Himself;  but,  on  the  contrary,  a  man  raised  to 
the  glory  of  Deity,  and  to  pre-eminence  over  all,  and  taking 
the  form  of  God,  and  becoming  exalted  to  be  an  assessor 
on  the  throne  with  the  Father."  >  In  another  place  we  find 
him  arguing  against  the  Xestorian  doctrine  of  assump- 
tion in  favour  of  his  own  doctrine  of  union  by  hypostasis, 
to  the  effect  that  the  kenosis  requires  that  the  human  at- 
tributes should  be  predicable  of  the  Divine  Subject.  "  Do 
you  think,"  he  asks  his  opponent  Theodoret,  "  that  St.  Paul 
meant  to  deceive  the  saints  when  he  wrote,  '  that,  being 
rich,  He  became  poor  on  our  account '  ?  But  who  is  the 
rich  One,  and  how  became  He  poor  ?  If,  as  they  make 
bold  to  think  and  say,  a  man  was  assumed  by  God,  how 
can  He  who  was  assumed  and  adorned  with  preternatural 
honours  be  said  to  have  become  poor  ?  He  only  can  be  said 
to  have  been  impoverished  who  is  rich  as  God.  But  how  ? 
we  must  consider  that  question.  For,  being  confessedly 
unchangeable  in  nature,  He  was  not  converted  into  the 
nature  of  flesh,  laying  aside  His  own  proper  nature;  but  He 
remained  what  He  was,  that  is,  God.  Where,  then,  shall 
we  see  the  humility  of  impoverishment  ?  Think  you  in 
this,  that  He  took  one  like  ourselves,  as  the  creatures  of 
Nestorius  dare  to  say  ?  And  what  sort  of  poverty  and 
exinanition  would  that  be  which  consisted  in  His  wishing 
to  honour  some  man  like  us  ?  For  God  is  not  injured  in 
any  way  by  doing  good.  How,  then,  became  He  poor  ? 
Thus,  that  being  God  by  nature,  and  Son  of  God  the 
Father,  He  became  man,  and  was  born  of  the  seed  of  David 
according  to  the  flesh,  and  subjected  Himself  to  the  servile, 

1   Quod  units  sit  Christus,  Opera,  torn,  viii.,  Migne,  pp.  1279-8.1. 


The  Patristic    Christology.  53 

that  is,  to  the  human  measure;1  and  having  become  man; 
He  was  not  ashamed  of  the  measure  of  humanity.  For, 
not  having  refused  to  become  like  us,  how  should  He  refuse 
those  things  by  which  it  would  appear  that  He  had  really 
for  our  sakes  been  made  like  us  ?  If,  therefore,  we  separate 
Him  from  the  humanities,  whether  things  or  words,  we 
differ  in  no  respect  from  those  who  all  but  rob  Him  of  flesh, 
and  wholly  overturn  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation." 
Supposing  some  one  to  object,  that  it  was  altogether  un- 
worthy of  God  to  weep,  to  fear  death,  to  refuse  the  cup, 
he  goes  on  to  say:  "  When  the  exinanition  appears  mean 
to  thee,  admire  the  more  the  charity  of  the  Son.  What 
you  call  little,  He  did  voluntarily  for  thee.  He  wept 
humanly,  that  He  might  dry  thy  tears;  He  feared  eco- 
nomically, permitting  the  flesh  to  suffer  the  things  proper 
to  it,  that  He  might  make  us  bold:  He  refused  the  cup, 
that  the  cross  might  convict  the  Jews  of  impiety;  He  is 
said  to  have  been  weak  as  to  His  humanity,  that  He  might 
remove  thy  weakness;  He  offered  prayers,  that  He  might 
render  the  ears  of  the  Father  accessible  to  thee;  He  slept, 
that  thou  mightst  learn  not  to  sleep  in  temptation,  but  be 
watchful  unto  prayers.  " 3 

I  have  made  these  quotations  at  some  length,  because, 
while  fully  illustrating  the  style  of  Cyril's  argumentation 
from  the  kenosis  against  the  Nestorian  theory,  they  at  the 
same  time  set  forth  clearly  his  conception  of  the  kenosis 
as  resulting  from  a  hypostatical  union,  in  virtue  of  which 
all  the  humanities  in  Christ's  earthly  history  were  predica- 
ble  of  the  Logos  as  the  personal  subject.  Looking  now  at 
these  passages  and  others  of  similar  import  from  a  contro- 
versial point  of  view,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  they  have 
great  argumentative  force  against  the  Nestorian  view  of 
Christ's  person  as  conceived  by  Cyril.  Yet  the  advocates 
of  the  controverted  theory  did  not  feel  themselves  mortally 
wounded  by  such  arguments.  On  the  contrary,  they  in 
turn  argued  from  the  kenosis  against  their  antagonist.  In 
his  animadversions  on  Cyril's  third  anathema,  which  asserts 

1  SovXonpETtEi  vitedv  nirpov,  tovze6ti  to  avSpo67ttvov. 

*  Apolog.  contra  Tkeodoret,  pro  XII.  capitibus,  Anath.  x.  torn.  ix.  p.  440. 

3  Apolog.  contra  Theodoret.  Anath.  x.  torn.  ix.  p.  441. 


54  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

a  physical  as  opposed  to  a  merely  moral  union  of  the 
natures,  Theodoret  objects  that  such  a  union  makes  the 
kenosis  a  matter  of  physical  necessity,  instead  of  a  volun- 
tary act  of  condescension.  "  Nature,"  he  says,  "is  a  thing 
of  a  compulsory  character  and  without  will.  For  example, 
we  hunger  physically,  not  suffering  this  willingly,  but  by 
necessity;  for  certainly  those  living  in  poverty  would  cease 
begging  if  they  had  it  in  their  power  not  to  hunger.  In 
like  manner  we  thirst,  sleep,  breathe  by  nature;  for  these 
are  alj  without  will;  and  he  who  does  not  experience  these 
things,  of  necessity  dies.  If,  therefore,  the  union  of  the 
form  of  Son  to  the  form  of  a  servant  was  physical,  then 
God  the  Logos  was  joined  to  the  form  of  a  servant  as 
compelled  by  a  certain  necessity,  not  in  the  exercise  of 
philanthropy,  and  the  universal  Lawgiver  shall  be  found 
complying  with  compulsory  laws,  contrary  to  the  teaching 
of  Paul,  who  says;  '  He  humbled  Himself,  taking  the  form 
of  a  servant.'  The  words  kavrov  ekevoo6e  point  to  a  volun- 
tary act."  '  To  the  same  effect  John  of  Antioch,  criticizing 
the  same  anathema,  speaking  in  the  name  of  the  whole 
Syrian  church,  asks:  "  If  the  union  is  physical,  where  is  the 
grace,  where  the  divine  mystery  ?  For  natures  once  formed 
by  God  are  subject  to  the  reign  of  necessity."  2 

Now  Cyril  certainly  did  recognise  a  reign  of  physical  law, 
both  in  the  constitution  of  Christ's  person  and  in  the 
course  of  His  incarnate  history.  He  held  that  the  person 
was  not  secure  against  dissolution  unless  it  were  based  on 
physical  laws,  rather  than  on  a  gracious  relation  of  the 
Logos  to  the  man  Jesus,  such  as  the  Nestorian  party  ad- 
vocated. 3  And  he  considered  that  the  Logos,  in  becoming 
man  by  a  voluntary  act,  gave  to  physical  laws  a  certain 
dominion  over  Himself:  took  humanity,  on  the  understand- 
ing that  its  laws,  conditions,  or  measures,  were  to  be  re- 
spected.    In  this  very  act  of  voluntary  self-subjection   to 

1  Cyril.  Ap.  c.  Theod.  Anath.  iii.  Anath.  iii.  runs:  El'  ris  ?ni  rov  EvoS 
Xfji6rov  dicxipr.i  r«;  v7to6rd6£iS  uetcc  ri)v  'ivoo6iv,  novy  Qwditroov 
avrai  6vva.(p£ia  ry  xard  ti)v  diiav  ?}yovv  avrJEvriav  y  8vva6rEiav, 
xai  acvxi  Stj  uaWov  6vvoSnv  zifv  xa'y  Evoodiv  q>v6iKr)v. 

2  Cyril.  Apolog.  pro  XII.  capitibus  contra  Orientales,  Anath.  iii. 

3  Quod  units  sit  Christus,   t.  viii.   p.    1296:   ov  ydp  dvvitoitrov   sii  dno 

v,  6  in/  q>v6ixoiS  Lpt]pEi6rai  vouoii. 


The  Patristic    Christology.  55 

the  laws  of  humanity  did  the  kenosis  consist.  By  this 
principle  Cyril  explained  the  facts  of  birth,  growth  in  stature, 
and  experience  of  sinless  infirmities,  such  as  hunger,  thirst, 
sleep,  weariness,  etc.,  in  the  earthly  history  of  the  Saviour. 
"  It  was  not  impossible,"  he  says  in  one  place,  "  for  the 
omnipotent  Logos,  having  resolved  for  our  sakes  to  become 
man,  to  have  formed  a  body  for  Himself  by  his  own  power, 
refusing  birth  from  a  woman,  even  as  Adam  was  formed; 
but  because  that  might  give  occasion  to  unbelievers  to 
calumniate  the  Incarnation,  saying  it  was  not  real,  there- 
fore it  was  necessary  that  He  should  go  through  the  ordi- 
nary laws  of  human  nature."  1  With  reference  to  physical 
growth,  he  says  in  another  place:  "  It  was  not  impossible 
that  God,  the  Word  begotten  of  the  Father,  should  lift  the 
body  united  to  Him  out  of  its  very  swaddling-clothes  and 
raise  it  up  to  the  measure  of  mature  manhood.  But  this, 
would  have  been  a  thaumaturgical  proceeding,  and  incon- 
gruous to  the  laws  of  the  economy;  for  the  mystery  was  ac- 
complished noiselessly.  Therefore,  in  accordance  with  the 
economy,  He  permitted  the  measures  of  humanity  to  prevails 
over  Himself."2  In  a  third  passage  he  applies  the  same 
principle  of  compliance  with  the  laws  of  humanity  to  ex- 
plain a  group  of  infirmities,  including  the  appearance  of 
ignorance  (a  point  of  which  I  shall  speak  more  particularly 
forthwith).  "With  humanity,  the  only-begotten  Word 
bore  all  that  pertains  to  humanity,  save  sin.  But  ignorance 
of  the  future  agrees  to  the  measures  of  humanity;  therefore, 
while  as  God  knowing  all,  as  man  He  does  not  shake  Him- 
self clear  of  the  appearance  of  ignorance  as  suitable  to 
humanity.  For  as  He,  being  the  life  of  all,  received  bodily 
food,  not  despising  the  measure  of  the  kenosis  (He  is  also 
described  as  sleeping  and  being  weary);  so  likewise,  know- 
ing all,  He  yet  was  not  ashamed  to  ascribe  to  Himself 
the  ignorance  which  is  congruous  to  humanity.  For  all 
that  is  human  became  His,  sin  alone  excepted."  3 

1  Adv.  Nestor,  lib.  i.  cap.  i.  t.  ix.  p.  22:  HEXooprjHEy  dvaynaicoi  Sid  rdov 
dv(ipooTtivr]S  (pvdsooi  vojiioov. 

2  Quod  unus  Christus,  t.  viii.  p.  1332:  'EteXeito  yap  aipcxpyri  to  juv6- 
rr/piov  (a  fine  expression!).  'HcpiEi  Sr}  ovv  oIhovojuixgoS  toi?  trji  dvBpoo- 
■XOTTJTOS  /.lETpOlZ  iq>'  EO.VTGJ)  to  xpaTElv. 

3  Adv.  Anthropomorphitas,  c.  xiv. ;  vid.  Appendix,  Note  A 


56  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

In  advocating  this  reign  of  physical  law,  Cyril  proclaimed 
an  important  truth,  and  committed  no  offence  against  the 
freedom  of  the  Logos.  His  fault  rather  lay  in  restricting 
the  reign  of  law  to  the  material  sphere,  excluding  it  from 
the  intellectual  or  moral.  This  in  point  of  fact  he  did. 
He  recognised  no  real  growth  in  wisdom  or  in  character  in 
Christ.  He  felt,  indeed,  that  the  claims  of  the  kenosis  ex- 
tended to  the  mind  as  well  as  to  the  body,  and  he  made 
every  possible  effort  to  satisfy  those  claims;  but  he  did  not 
see  his  way  to  letting  the  intellectual  and  moral  growth  of 
Christ  be  anything  more  than  an  appearance.  The  union 
between  the  Logos  and  the  humanity  was  so  close  and  of 
such  a  nature,  in  his  view,  that  the  Logos  per  se  could  not 
be  conceived  as  possessing  knowledge  of  which  the  incar- 
nate person  was  not  also  consciously  possessed.  If,  as  al, 
admitted,  ignorance  could  not  be  predicated  of  the  former, 
neither  could  it  be  predicated  of  the  latter.  To  ascribe  to 
Christ  real  ignorance  was  in  effect  to  dissolve  the  union, 
and  to  make  Him  a  man  connected  with  the  Logos  by  an 
intimate  ethical  relation.  Cyril  was  fully  sensible  of  the 
critical  importance  of  the  problem,  how  the  ascription  to 
Christ  in  the  gospel  history,  of  growth  in  knowledge  as  a 
child,  and  of  ignorance  even  in  ripe  manhood,  was  to  be 
understood.  He  returns  to  it  again  and  again;  he  discusses 
it  in  at  least  eight  different  places  of  his  extant  works, 
sometimes  at  considerable  length;  he  exercises  his  ingenuity 
in  inventing  forms  of  language  by  which  to  express  his 
idea:  but  he  never  gets  beyond  appearance.  The  kenosis 
is  real  in  the  physical  region,  it  is  doketic  in  the  intellec- 
tual. Practically  the  position  in  which  Christ  is  placed  is 
this:  the  measures  of  the  kenosis  require  Him  to  seem 
ignorant,  as  ignorance  belongs  to  the  state  He  has  as- 
sumed— being  an  attribute  of  ordinary  humanity;  but  the 
Logos  is  incapable  of  so  adapting  Himself  to  the  human 
nature  He  has  assumed,  that  the  ignorance  of  the  thean- 
thropic  person  shall  in  any  case  be  real,  even  the  child's 
growth  in  knowledge  being  in  reality  only  a  gradual  man- 
ifestation to  others  of  a  knowledge  already  inwardly  com- 
plete. In  every  one  of  the  passages  in  which  Cyril  discusses 
the  question,  this  is  the  way  the  case  is  put.     Xow  he  rep- 


TJie  Patristic    Christology.  5"] 

resents  Christ  as  usefully  pretending  not  to  know  the  day 
of  judgment,  now  as  not  shunning  the  appearance  of  igno- 
rance as  decent  in  one  who  had  assumed  humanity,  now  as 
economizing  or  schematizing  in  speaking  of  Himself  as 
ignorant.  The  growth  of  the  boy  in  knowledge  is  resolved 
into  a  gradual  revelation  of  Himself  to  the  world,  out  of 
respect  to  the  physical  law  by  which  in  ordinary  men  bodily 
and  mental  growth  progress  together;  this  law  in  Christ's 
case  being  complied  with  by  a  real  growth  of  the  body, 
and  by  a  studied  appearance  of  growth  in  the  mind.  "  We 
teach,"  says  Cyril,  in  his  second  oratio  ad  reginas,  putting 
the  matter  as  precisely  as  possible, — "we  teach  that  it 
was  agreeable  to  the  measures  of  the  kenosis  that  Christ 
should  receive  bodily  growth  and  gradual  consolidation  and 
strengthening  of  the  bodily  organs,  and  likewise  that  He 
should  seem  to  be  filled  with  wisdom;  because  it  was  most 
meet  that  the  manifestation  of  His  indwelling  wisdom 
should  keep  pace  with  the  increase  in  His  bodily  stature." ' 
At  this  point  the  views  of  Cyril  stand  in  the  sharpest 
possible  contrast  to  those  of  the  Oriental  theologians,  who 
took  the  Gospel  statements  in  their  plain,  natural  sense, 
and  believed  that  Christ  grew  in  knowledge  as  well  as  in 
stature,  and  made  progress  in  virtue  through  real  conflict 
with  temptation.  The  difference  in  this  respect  between 
the  two  schools  was  the  natural  result  of  their  respective 
points  of  view.  The  Alexandrians  started  from  the  divine 
side,  and  made  the  humanity  as  real  as  seemed  compatible 
with  its  hypostatic  union  to  the  Logos;  the  Orientals  started 
from  the  human  side,  and  made  the  union  between  the  man 
and  the  Logos  as  intimate  as  was  compatible  with  the  re- 
ality of  the  humanity.  Both  schools  failed  on  different 
sides:  the  Orientals,  on  the  side  of  the  unity  of  the  person; 
the  Alexandrians,  on  the  side  of  the  reality  of  the  human 
nature  and  experience.  Both  failed  from  one  cause — over- 
confident dogmatism  as  to  the  conditions  and  possibilities 

1  The  question  concerning  the  knowledge  of  Christ  being  important,  and  the 
views  of  Cyril  having  been  misunderstood  by  some,  e.  g.  Forbes  in  his  Listruc- 
tiones  historico-tkeologicae,  I  deem  it  advisable  to  give  the  passages  in  Cyril's  wok 
bearing  on  the  topic  in  full.  These  accordingly,  eight  in  all,  of  which  Forbes 
quotes  only  three,  the  reader  will  find  in  Appendix,  Note  A,  with  an  English 
translation  in  parallel  columns. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

of  the  Incarnation.  Both  started  from  the  assumption  that 
a  union  such  as  is  implied  in  God  becoming  man,  as  dis- 
tinct from  that  formed  by  God  assuming  a  man,  is  not 
compatible  with  a  completely  real  human  experience.  It 
would  have  been  wiser  in  both  to  have  accepted  the  facts, 
whether  they  could  explain  them  or  not.  Had  Cyril,  in 
particular,  taken  this  course,  he  would  have  escaped  moral 
and  intellectual  doketism;  he  would  not  have  felt  it  neces- 
sary to  place  Christ  in  the  unworthy  position  of  being 
obliged,  out  of  regard  to  decency,  to  feign  an  ignorance 
which  was  not  real;  he  would  have  conceived  it  possible 
that  the  Logos  might  be  conscious  of  the  child  Jesus,  while 
the  child  was  unconscious  of  the  Logos,  or  entirely  without 
self-consciousness;  he  would  not  only  have  taught  a  gradual 
revelation  of  the  Logos  through  Jesus  to  others,  but,  with 
his  predecessor  Athanasius,  he  would  have  admitted  that 
the  Logos  revealed  Himself  to  Himself  in  Jesus,1  and  grew 
in  Himself;  the  Wisdom  of  God  building  in  Jesus  a  house 
for  Himself,  and  causing  the  house  to  make  progress  in 
wisdom  and  grace.  How  these  things  can  be,  it  may  be 
difficult,  or  even  impossible,  to  explain — more  ways  of  ex- 
plaining them  than  one  have  been  proposed;  but  we  must 
not  suspend  acceptance  of  facts  till  we  have  found  a  theory 
which  accounts  for  them;  we  must  accept  the  facts  first, 
and  seek  for  our  theory  at  leisure. 

The  manner  in  which  Cyril  disposed  of  the  problem  of 
mental  growth  may  be  regarded  as  an  index  of  the  general 
character  of  his  Christology.  That  Christology  has  been 
characterized  as  physical  rather  than  ethical;-  and  it  may 
be  further  described  as  monophysitical  in  tendency,  though, 
it  must  be  admitted,  not  avowedly,  for  its  author  repudi- 
ated mixture  and  confusion  of  the  natures,  as  earnestly  as 
Nestorius  repudiated  the  charge  of  teaching  two  Sons.* 
Cyril  looked  on  the  divine  and  the  human  natures  as  two 

1  Oratio  iii.,  Con.  Arianos,  c.  52:  Kai  rov  Xoyov  qxxvEpovvroS  kccvrov 
eavra).  Then  a  little  below  in  the  same  place:  El  XPV  $£  *0  mQavcSs  uezd 
rov  aXrfiovS  eineTv,  avro?  kv  iavzcS  it p6 EHoitz s-  r/  6o<pia  y&p  who- 
8ourj6ev  iavry  oihov,  xai  Iv  avrrf,  toy  oinov  Ttpoxoitrtiv  knout. 

2  Dorner,  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  i.  p.  73. 

3  Vid.  Quod  units  sit  Christus,  p.  1260:  yiyovtv  a.vrJpooitoi  ovk  sis  6apua 
zpanei?,  r/  cpvp^ov  rj  xpdtiiv,  77  rx.  xcSv  toiovtoqv  erepoy  vnojusiyai. 


The  Patristic    Christology.  5 9 

elements,  or  things,  as  he  sometimes  calls  them,1  so  closely 
connected  that  they  were  as  one.  He  closes  his  treatise 
on  the  unity  of  Christ's  person,  confessing  one  and  the  same 
Son,  of  two  things  appearing  ineffably  as  one  somewhat  out 
of  two;8  and  in  another  place  he  declares  that  the  incarnate 
nature  of  the  Logos  must  be  regarded  as  one  after  the 
union,  comparing  the  composite  nature  successively  to  that 
formed  by  the  union  of  body  and  soul  in  an  ordinary  man, 
to  a  live  coal,  a  pearl,  and  a  lily;  the  Logos  being  the  fire 
in  the  coal,  the  brightness  in  the  pearl,  and  the  sweet  odour 
in  the  lily.8  He  betrays  his  monophysitic  tendencies  also 
by  occasional  representations  of  the  relation  between  the 
two  natures,  somewhat  akin  to  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of 
the  communication  of  properties  (communicatio  idiomatum). 
He  speaks  of  the  humanity  as  deified;4  of  the  Logos  as  col- 
lecting both  natures  into  one,  and  mixing  up  together  the 
properties  of  the  two;5  of  John  the  Evangelist  as,  in  the 
preface  of  his  first  Epistle,  almost  gathering  into  one  the 
natures,  and  conducting  the  virtue  of  the  properties  of  both, 
as  confluent  streams  into  one  common  watercourse;6  of  the 
flesh  of  Christ  as  endowed  with  life-giving  power.7  On  the 
other  hand,  just  as  in  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  communi- 
cation, while  the  divine  nature  communicates  some  of  its 
properties  to  the  human,  the  human  in  turn  communicates 
nothing  to  the  divine.  The  divine  element  remains  im- 
passible amid  the  sufferings  of  the  humanity,  as  heat  in  a 
mass  of  heated  iron  remains  untouched  by  a  stroke  through 

Habsis  ds  judXXov  iavzov  «/?  h£vgj6iv,  etc.;  also  p.   1292:  "Ez£pov  juev 

XI  Mat  £Z£pOV  fjEOVTjS    KCti    CX  vfy  pGQ7tOZ7)i    .    .    .    d/\/\.d  ?/V   £V  Xpi6Z6J  cEl'G)1 

T£  xai  vitip  vovv  £/J  ivoziiza  6vv8£8pain)Koza  dvyxv6£0Ji  8ixa  xa- 
Tponr/S. 

1  npdynaza,  in  Apolog.  pro  XII.  cap.  contra  Orientates,  Anath.  iv.;  Quoc 
units  sit  Christus,  p.  1254. 

s  Quod  touts  sit  Christus,  p.  1254. 

3  Adv.  Nestorium,  lib.  ii.  pp.  60-62:  /.tia  yap  r)8r}  voEizai  tpv6zS  U£zo 
T77V  £vgo6iy  r)  avzov  z  ov  Xoyov  6£dapxoo/.t£v?/. 

*  Thesaurus,  Assertio  28,  p.  429:  ovzcoi  kv  docpia  itpo£Konz£v  ?}  dvbpoa 
■nozriZ  6  £  on  01  ov  //  iv rj  Si  avziji- 

8  De  htcarnatione  Unigeniti,  p.  1244. 

6  De  htcarnatione  Unigeniti,  p.  1249:  fxov ov ovxi  xai  dvvayEi'pcov  rd< 
(pv6£i?,  nai  £is  /.tidyayxEiav  aycov  rt3v  ixazipa  Ttp£n6vzoov  iSicofxd 
Toov  rr/v  8vva/.iiv. 

7  Adv.  Nest.  lib.  iv.  cap.  v.:  6dpxa  ^coonoiov  (o  \6yoS)  dnitprjvtv. 


5o  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

which  the  iron  itself  is  injured.1  The  blending  of  the  natures 
issues  in  the  weaker  being,  so  to  speak,  swallowed  up  by 
the  stronger.  The  humanity  is  still  there;  but  it  is  so  ex- 
alted and,  as  it  were,  transformed  by  its  connection  with 
divinity,  that  one  may  hardly  dare  speak  of  it  as  consub- 
stantial  with  that  of  ordinary  men.5 

Such  being  the  character  and  general  tendency  of  the 
Cyrillian  type  of  Christology,  it  was  a  matter  of  course  that 
the  Nestorian  controversy  should  pass  into  the  Eutychian 
Phase,  in  which  the  question  at  issue  was:  Are  there  in  the 
one  person  of  Christ  two  distinct  natures,  or  only  one  ? 
Concerning  the  opinions  of  Eutyches  we  have  little  exact 
information;  but  we  know  enough  to  be  able  to  say  that  he 
had  not  the  honour  of  originating  a  new  and  peculiar  heresy. 
Eutychianism,  as  expounded  by  the  man  from  whom  it 
takes  its  name,  was  simply  Cyrillianism  gone  mad — mon- 
ophysitic  tendencies  carried  to  extremes,  with  the  char- 
acteristic extravagance  of  a  monk  who  had  brooded  in  his 
cell  over  his  pet  views  till  they  assumed  in  his  heated  brain 
the  form  of  fixed  ideas.  The  party  whom  Eutyches  repre- 
sented, including  the  monks  of  Constantinople  and  Egypt, 
and  the  unscrupulous  bishop  of  Alexandria,  Dioscuros,  like 
Cyril,  laid  a  great,  one-sided  emphasis  on  the  unity  of  the 
person,  and  insisted  on  regarding  all  Christ's  human  ex- 
periences as  predicable  of  the  Divine  Subject  who  had 
become  incarnate.  God,  said  they,  was  born;  God  died. 
They  did  not  mean  by  such  statements  to  teach  that  God, 
in  becoming  man,  had  been  changed  into  flesh,  or  that  the 
divine  nature  was  in  itself  passible.  They  do  indeed  seem 
to  have  indulged  in  a  style  of  expression  which,  strictly 

1  Quod  unus  sit  Christus,  p.  1357.  Cyril  apologizes  for  this  metaphor,  in  in. 
troducing  it  to  illustrate  how  the  divine  nature  remained  impassible  amid  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ.  Well  he  might;  for  the  metaphor  fails  to  do  justice  either  to  the 
nature  of  God  or  to  the  nature  of  suffering.  Of  course  the  divine  nature  cannot 
suffer  as  the  body  suffers;  but  there  is  a  moral  suffering  of  which  God  is  capable 
because  He  is  love. 

2  In  one  place  (Quod  units  sit  Christus,  p.  1332)  Cyril  remarks  that  the  Apostle 
'aul  sometimes  seems  to  shrink  from  calling  Christ  a  man,  instancing  those  words 

m  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians:  "  Paul,  an  apostle,  not  of  men,  nor  by  man,  but 
by  Jesus  Christ,"  Gal.  i.  1.  It  is  significant  that  such  an  interpretation  of  Paul's 
words  should  have  occurred  to  Cyril's  mind.  It  is  a  straw  showing  the  current 
of  his  thoughts. 


The  Patristic    Christology.  6] 

interpreted,  laid  them  open  to  the  charge  of  teaching  such 
opinions,  if  we  may  rely  on  the  accuracy  of  the  representa- 
tion of  their  position  given  by  Theodoret  in  the  work  en- 
titled, Eranistes,  or  Polymorphos,  and  manifestly  directed 
against  Eutychian  views,  though  Eutyches  is  nowhere 
named.  The  title  of  this  book  sufficiently  indicates  the 
opinion  entertained  by  its  author  of  the  views  it  is  intended 
to  controvert,1  suggesting  the  idea  of  a  piebald  system  of 
heterogeneous  tenets  begged  from  sundry  heresies.  In  ex- 
plaining the  name  he  had  given  his  work,  Theodoret  illus- 
trates his  meaning  by  representing  the  parties  whom  he 
has  in  his  eye  as  borrowing  from  Marcion  the  appropriation 
of  the  name  Christ  to  God  alone,  from  Valentine  the  birth 
of  the  Logos  by  mere  transition  through  Mary,  from  Apol- 
linaris  the  union  of  divinity  and  humanity  into  one  nature, 
and  from  Arius  and  Eunomias  the  ascription  of  the  passion 
to  the  divinity  of  Christ.2  It  is  clear,  however,  that  both  in 
the  selection  and  in  the  explanation  of  his  title,  Theodoret 
avails  himself  of  a  licence  permissible  in  the  dialogue  form  of 
composition,  and  draws  his  characters  in  bold  outline  for 
the  sake  of  effect.  His  book  is  virtually  a  work  of  fiction, 
not  containing  a  historical  account  of  the  exact  opinions  of 
certain  individuals,  but  a  free  description  of  the  affinities  and 
tendencies  of  these  opinions,  intended  to  show  their  advo- 
cates the  ultimate  consequences  to  which  they  lead.  Yet, 
notwithstanding  the  high  colouring  of  the  preface,  the  author 
allows  it  to  appear  clearly,  in  the  course  of  the  discussion 
between  the  two  interlocutors,  that  the  beggar  is  not  so< 
great  a  heretic  as  he  at  first  seemed.  The  monk  with  the 
parti-coloured  garment  has  no  theory  as  to  how  the  Logos  be- 
came man.  He  simply  says,  "  The  Word  became  flesh;  how, 
He  Himself  knows."*  Sticking  to  the  words  of  the  evan- 
gelist, as  Luther  stuck  to  the  words  "  this  is  my  body  "  in 
his  sacramentarian  controversy  with  Zuingli,  he  maintains 
that  Christ,  though  of  two  natures,  had  only  one  nature 
after  the  union;  but  when  asked  how  the  two  became  one, 
— whether  by  chemical  union,  as  in  the  case  of  gold  and 
silver  combining  to  form  electron, — he  replied  that  the  union 

1  'EpavidT?/S,  beggar;  Tto\vuopq>oS,  many-shaped. 

8   Vid.  TtpoXoyoi.  3  Dialogue  i.  p.  7  (Opera,  Paris,  1642,  vol.  iv.). 


62  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

is  not  of  that  kind,  that  it  cannot  be  explained  in  words, 
that  it  surpasses  all  comprehension;  and  only  after  being 
further  pressed  for  an  answer  does  he  venture  to  say,  "the 
divinity  remains,  and  the  humanity  is  absorbed  by  it  as  a 
drop  of  honey  is  absorbed  by  the  sea;"1  but  when  the 
absorption  took  place,  whether  at  the  conception  or  after 
the  resurrection,  he  hardly  can  tell.  He  asserts  that  God 
suffered;  but  he  admits  the  divine  impassibility,  and  repre- 
sents God  in  Christ  as  suffering  through  the  flesh,  and 
voluntarily,  in  gracious  love  to  men.2 

It  is  plain  from  those  representations  that  Eutyches  had 
no  distinct  definite  conception  of  the  constitution  of  our 
Lord's  person.  He  felt  rather  than  thought  on  the  subject 
of  Christology.  He  did  not  pretend  to  comprehend  the 
mystery  of  the  Incarnation,  but  rather  gloried  in  proclaim- 
ing its  incomprehensibleness.  He  knew  that  God  and  flesh 
were  altogether  different  things,  and  he  believed  that 
Christ's  flesh  was  real;  but  the  divinity  bulked  so  large  in 
his  eye,  that  the  humanity  in  comparison  vanished  into 
nothing.  And  if  compelled  by  fact  to  admit  that  the 
humanity  was  still  there,  not  drunk  up  like  a  drop  of  honey 
by  the  sea  of  the  divinity,  he  refused,  at  all  events,  to  re- 
gard it  as  on  a  level  with  ordinary  humanity:  reverence 
protested  against  calling  Christ's  divine  body  consubstan- 
tial  with  the  bodies  of  common  mortals.  It  would  have 
been  well  had  the  course  of  events  permitted  such  a  man 
to  pass  his  life  in  obscurity.  But  it  was  otherwise  ordered. 
Eutyches  became  the  representative  of  a  theory  which  en- 
gaged the  attention  of  three  Synods;  being  condemned  by 
the  first,8  approved  by  the  second,4  and  re-condemned  and 
finally  disposed  of  as  a  heresy  by  the  third,  the  famous  Oecu- 
menical Council  of  Chalcedon,  whose  decree  is  quoted  at 
length  at  the  commencement  of  the  present  lecture. 

The  policy  of  that  Council  was  to  steer  a  middle  course 
between  Nestorianism  and  Eutychianism;  the  former  being 
conceived  as  teaching  two  persons  in  Christ,  the  latter  as 

1  Dialogue  ii.  pp.  67,  77.  2  Dialogue  iii.  p.  121. 

3  Held  at  Constantinople,  A.D.  448. 

4  Held  at  Ephesus,  \.\>.  499;  called  the  Robber  Synod  on  account  of  the  vio 
lent  character  of  its  proceedings. 


The  Patristic    Christology.  63 

teaching  that  there  was  not  only  but  one  person,  but,  more- 
over, only  one  nature;  the  one  nature  being  predominantly 
divine,  and,  in  so  far  as  human,  not  like  the  nature  of  other 
men.  Between  the  two  extremes,  so  conceived,  there  was 
plenty  of  room  for  a  middle  course,  and  no  very  skilful 
pilotage  was  needed  to  keep  the  vessel  within  the  limits  of 
safe  navigation.  The  pilot  in  this  emergency,  as  is  well 
known,  was  the  Roman  Bishop  Leo,  whose  letter  to  Flavian, 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  concerning  the  errors  of  Euty- 
ches,  guided  the  deliberations  and  fixed  the  judgment  of 
the  Fathers  assembled  at  Chalcedon,  and  thus  became  an 
epoch-making  document  in  the  history  of  Christology. 
The  substance  of  that  celebrated  epistle  is  as  follows: — 
The  Son  of  God  became  man  by  birth  from  the  Virgin 
Mary,  and  in  the  incarnate  Word  two  natures  were  com- 
bined into  one  person,  each  nature  retaining  its  distinct 
property.  For  the  deliverance  of  men  from  sin,  an  inviol- 
able nature  was  united  to  a  passible  nature,  that  one  and 
the  same  Mediator  between  God  and  man,  the  man  Christ 
Jesus,  might  be  able  to  die  in  the  one,  and  might  be  in- 
capable of  dying  in  the  other.  Thus,  in  the  entire  and 
perfect  nature  of  a  true  man  true  God  was  born  totus  in 
suis,  totus  in  nostris,  the  nostra  including  everything  but 
sin.  This  assumption  of  servile  form  by  the  Son  of  God, 
while  exalting  the  humanity  of  Christ,  did  not  diminish 
His  divinity;  for  the  kenosis  by  which  the  Lord  of  all  willed 
to  become  one  of  mortals  was  not  a  loss  of  power,  but  an 
act  of  condescending  compassion,1  which,  so  far  from  intro- 
ducing an  alteration  into  God,  only  demonstrated  the 
unchangeableness  of  His  will,  which  cannot  be  deprived  of 
its  benignity,  and  which  refused  to  be  baffled  by  the  wiles 
of  the  devil  aiming  at  the  destruction  of  mankind.  The 
Incarnation,  being  a  fulfilment  of  divine  love,  involved  at 
the  same  time  for  the  Son  of  God  no  loss  of  divine  glory. 
He  descended  from  the  celestial  abode,  not  receding  from 
the  glory  of  His  Father;2  the  immensity  of  His  majesty 
was  simply  veiled  by  the  assumption  of  a  servile  form.  On 
the  other  hand,  as  God  was  not  changed  by  compassion. 

1  Inclinatio  fuit  miserationis,  non  defectio  potestatis. — Epist.  c.  3. 

t  De  coelesti  sede  descendens,  et  a  Paterna  gloria  non  recedens. — Epist.  c.  4, 


64  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

so  man  was  not  consumed  by  dignity.1  He  who  was  true 
God  was  also  true  man — there  was  no  lie  in  the  union;  the 
humility  of  the  man  and  the  altitude  of  Deity  were  co-ex- 
istent in  the  same  person.  Each  nature  in  Christ  performed 
in  communion  with  the  other  what  was  congruous  to  itself, 
the  Word  doing  what  suited  the  Word,  and  the  flesh  what 
suited  the  flesh ;  the  former  coruscating  with  miracles,  the  lat- 
ter submitting  to  injuries;  the  Word  not  receding  from  equal- 
ity in  glory  with  His  Father,  the  flesh  not  leaving  the  nature 
of  our  race.  While  the  natures  continue  distinct  in  their 
properties,  yet,  in  virtue  of  the  unity  of  the  person,  things 
are  sometimes  predicated  of  the  one  which  in  strictness 
belong  to  the  other.  The  Son  of  man  is  said  to  have 
descended  from  heaven,  in  allusion  to  the  Incarnation;  and 
the  Son  of  God  is  said  to  have  been  crucified  and  buried, 
though  He  suffered  these  things  not  in  His  divinity,  but  in 
the  infirmity  of  human  nature.2 

It  is  easy  to  recognise  in  this  letter  of  Leo  the  source  of, 
the  formula  framed  and  adopted  by  the  Council  of  Chalce- 
don.  The  letter  and  the  formula  are  virtually  one  From 
the  "  totus  in  suis,  totus  in  nostris  "  of  the  letter  comes  the 
"  perfect  in  Deity  and  the  same  perfect  in  humanity  "  of  the 

formula;    and  the  d6vyxvro3i,  dzpeiiraoi,  dSiaipizooi,  dxGjpidrooi* 

of  the  formula  do  but  condense  into  four  words  the  various 
phrases  scattered  up  and  down  the  letter,  in  which  the 
writer  sets  forth  the  distinctness  and  integrity  of  the  two 
natures  on  the  one  hand,  and  their  intimate,  inseparable 
union  in  one  person  on  the  other.  If,  now,  we  inquire  how 
far  the  letter  and  the  formula  together  were  fitted  to  put 
an  end  to  controversy,  it  must  be  admitted  that  they  did 
at  least  indicate  the  cardinal  points  of  a  true  Christology, 
in  which  all  controversialists  should  agree.  They  laid  down 
these  two  fundamental  propositions:  Christ  must  be  re- 
garded as  one  person,  the  common  subject  of  all  predi- 
cates, human  and  divine;  and  in  Christ  must  be  recognised 

1  Sicut  enim  Deus  non  mutatur  miseratione:  ita  homo  non  consumitur  digni- 
tz.Xe.—Epis(.  c.  4. 

*  Propter  hanc  unitatem  personae  in  utraque  natura  intelligendam,  et  Filius 
hominis  le^itur  descendisse  de  coelo,  et  rursus  Filius  Dei  crucifixus  dicitur  ac  se- 
pultus. — Epist.  c.  5. 

3  Without  confusion,  unchangeably,  indivisibly,  inseparably. 


The  Patristic  Christology.  65 

two  distinct  natures,  the  divine  and  the  human — the  divine 
not  converted  into  the  human,  the  human  not  absorbed 
into  the  divine;  the  latter  side  of  the  second  proposition, 
the  integrity  and  reality  of  the  humanity,  viz.,  being  chief- 
ly emphasized,  as  the  state  of  the  controversy  required. 
But  they  did  little  more  than  this.  Leo  and  the  Council 
told  men  what  they  should  believe,  but  they  gave  little  aid 
to  faith  by  showing  how  the  unity  of  the  person  and  the 
distinctness  of  the  natures  were  compatible  with  each  other; 
aid  which,  if  it  could  be  had,  was  urgently  needed,  for  the 
whole  controversy  may  be  said  to  have  arisen  from  a  felt 
inability  to  combine  the  unity  and  the  duality, — those  who 
emphasized  the  unity  failing  to  do  justice  to  the  duality, 
and  those  who  felt  compelled  to  insist  strongly  on  the  in- 
tegrity of  Christ's  humanity  not  knowing  well  how  to  rec- 
oncile therewith  the  unity  of  His  person.  Aid  of  this  kind 
was  not  to  be  looked  for,  indeed,  in  the  decree  of  a  Coun- 
cil, but  it  might  perhaps  have  been  reasonably  expected 
from  ai.  epistle  which  almost  assumed  the  dimensions  of  a 
theological  treatise.  Leo,  however,  makes  no  attempt  at 
a  solution  of  the  problem,  but  contents  himself  with  stat- 
ing its  conditions.  Certain  points  of  critical  importance 
he  passes  over  in  silence.  For  example,  he  says  nothing 
on  the  question  of  Christ's  knowledge,  with  which  Cyril 
grappled  so  earnestly,  though  unsuccessfully.  He  does 
not  say  whether  ignorance  and  growth  in  wisdom  are  or 
are  not  included  under  the  phrase  totus  in  nostris;  and  the 
omission  is  all  the  more  noticeable  that  he  does  enter  into 
some  detail  on  the  properties  of  Christ's  humanity,  reckon- 
ing among  them  birth,  infancy,  temptation,  hunger,  thirst, 
weariness,  and  sleep.  It  would  have  been  instructive  to 
know  how  the  Roman  bishop  applied  the  formula  tolus  in 
suis,  totus  in  nostris  to  the  category  of  knowledge;  and  in 
case  he  reckoned  omniscience  among  the  sua,  and  ignor- 
ance among  the  nostra,  to  know  how  he  combined  these 
two  opposites  in  one  person,  and  how  in  this  case  each 
nature  performed  that  which  was  common  to  it  in  com- 
munion with  the  other.  From  the  style  in  which  Leo  ex- 
presses himself  concerning  the  divine  in  Christ,  one  rather 
fears  that  he  had  no  light  to  give  on  that  subject.     His 


66  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

doctrine  of  divine  immutability  is  very  rigid.  The  Son  of 
God  in  becoming  man  did  not  recede  from  the  equality  of 
paternal  glory,1 — a  statement  not  in  harmony  either  with 
the  word  or  with  the  spirit  of  Scripture  in  speaking  on  the 
humiliation  of  Christ,  and,  indeed,  as  Dorner  has  observed,' 
not  in  keeping  with  a  thought  of  Leo's  own,  occurring  in 
an  earlier  part  of  his  epistle,  viz.,  that  the  Incarnation  does 
not  violate  divine  immutability,  inasmuch  as  it  is  the  deed 
of  a  will  which  loved  man  at  his  creation,  and  which  does 
not  allow  itself  to  be  deprived  of  its  benign  disposition 
towards  man,  either  through  his  sin  or  through  the  devil's 
wiles.  If  God's  unchangeablene">s  be  secured  by  the  im- 
mutability of  His  loving  will,  why  guard  His  majesty  in  a 
way  that  tends  to  make  His  love  a  hollow  unreality  ?  why 
not  let  love  have  free  course,  and  be  glorified,  even  though 
its  glorification  should  involve  a  temporary  forfeiture  of 
glory  of  another  kind  ?  From  our  Christological  point  of 
view,  that  of  the  exinanition,  this  is  a  part  of  Leo's  letter 
with  which  we  cannot  sympathize.  The  doctrine  of  exin- 
anition demands  the  unity  of  the  person  and  the  distinct- 
ness of  the  natures,  especially  the  reality  and  integrity  of 
the  human  nature;  but  it  does  not  require  us  to  guard  the 
Divine  Majesty  as  the  disciples  guarded  their  Master  from 
the  intrusion  of  the  mothers  with  their  children.  With 
reference  to  such  zeal,  the  Son  of  God  says:  "  Suffer  me  to 
humble  myself."  Even  Cyril  understood  this  better  than 
Leo,  for  he  spoke  of  the  Son  of  God  as  somehow  made  less 
than  Himself  in  becoming  man.3 

On  another  subject  Leo  is  silent — the  question  of  the 
personality  of  the  human  nature.  He  teaches  the  unity  of 
the  person,  but  he  does  not  say  to  which  of  the  natures  the 
personality  is  to  be  appropriated,  or  whether  it  belongs  to 
both,  or  is  distinct  from  both.  Whether  the  humanity  of 
Christ  was  personal  or  impersonal,  whether  Christ  was  not 

1  Sicut  verbum  ab  aequalitate  Paternae  Gloriae  non  recessit  ita,  etc. — Epist. 
c.  4. 

2  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  i.  p.  88. 

3  TitEpixovToc.  fiiv  rcSv  rrjs  xri'dea>S  uizpaov  go?  Btov  iavrov  Si 
ncti  uovovovxi  xoci  fjrzGnievov  xabu  TteqjrjvEv  avQpcoTTo?. — Ad reginas 
de  verb  fide,  oratio  altera,  xvi.  The  manner  in  which  Cyril  here  expresses  him. 
«clf  is  curiously  guarded  and  embarrassed,  nooi  /tovovovxi,  somehow  almost  I 


The  Patristic    Christology.  67 

merely  man  but  a  man,  whether  personality  is  to  be  reck- 
oned among  the  nostra  ascribed  to  Christ  in  their  totality, 
— these  are  questions  which  either  did  not  occur  to  his 
mind,  or  on  which  he  did  not  feel  able  to  throw  light.  The 
former  supposition  is  probably  the  correct  one;  for  the 
writers  of  the  patristic  period  did  not  conceive  a  person  as 
we  do,  as  a  self-conscious  Ego,  but  simply  as  a  centre  of 
unity  for  the  characteristics  which  distinguish  one  individ- 
ual from  another.1  According  to  this  view,  Christ  would 
be  "  the  result  of  the  conjunction  of  natures,  the  sum  total 
of  both,  the  collective  centre  of  vital  unity  which  is  at  once 
God  and  man."  2 

The  Council  of  Chalcedon  proved  utterly  impotent  to 
stay  the  progress  of  controversy;  its  only  immediate  effect 
being  to  produce  a  schism  in  the  Church,  whereby  the 
Monophysite  party  became  constituted  into  a  sect.  The 
great  debate  went  on  as  if  no  ecclesiastical  decision  had 
been  come  to,  prolonging  its  existence  for  upwards  of  three 
hundred  years,  and  passing  successively  through  three 
different  stages,  distinguished  respectively  as  the  Mono- 
physite, the  Monothelite,  and  the  Adoptian  controversies. 
The  Chalcedonian  formula  left  a  sufficient  number  of  un- 
settled questions  to  supply  ample  materials  for  further  dis- 
cussions. Are  unity  of  the  person  and  a  duality  of  natures 
mutually  compatible  ?  what  belongs  to  the  category  of  the 
natures  and  what  to  the  category  of  the  person,  and,  in 
particular,  to  which  of  the  two  categories  is  the  will  to  be 
reckoned  ?  is  personality  essential  to  the  completeness  of 
each  nature,  in  particular  to  the  completeness  of  the  human 
nature  ?  These  questions  in  turn  became  the  successive 
subjects  of  dispute  in  the  long  Christological  warfare  which 
ensued;  the  first  being  the  radical  point  at  issue  in  the 
Monophysite  phase,  the  second  in  the  Monothelite,  the 
third  in  the  Adoptian;  the  great  controversy  thus  return- 
ing in  its  final  stage,  at  the  close  of  the  eighth  century, 
pretty  nearly  to  the  point  from  which  it  started  at  the  be- 
ginning of  the  fourth,  Adoptianism  being,  if  not,  as  some 
think,  with  some  difference  of  form,  virtually  Nestorianism 

1  Dorner,  Person  of  Christ,  div.  i.  vol.  li.  p.  320. 
8  Ibid.  div.  ii.  vol.  i.  p.  87. 


68  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

redivivus,  at  least  the  assertion  of  a  double  aspect  in  Christ's 
personality.  Of  the  many  contests  which  raged  around 
these  questions  in  the  course  of  the  next  three  centuries,  I 
will  not  here  attempt  to  give  even  the  most  cursory  ac- 
count. The  subject  is  indeed  by  no  means  inviting.  From 
the  Council  of  Chalcedon  to  the  Council  of  Frankfort  may 
be  called  the  dreary  period  of  Christology,  the  sources  of 
information  being  comparatively  scanty,  the  points  at  issue 
minute  or  obscure,  and  even  when  both  clear  and  impor- 
tant, as  in  the  Monothelite  controversy,  involving  subtle 
scholastic  discussions  distasteful  to  the  religious  spirit,  and 
presenting  to  view  an  anatomical  figure  in  place  of  the 
Christ  of  the  Gospel  history.  The  doctrine,  I  suppose,  had 
to  pass  through  all  the  phases  referred  to, — probably  not 
one  of  the  battles,  great  or  small,  could  have  been  avoided; 
still  one  is  thankful  his  lot  is  cast  in  better  times  than  those 
in  which  they  were  fought  out.  Who  would  care  to  spend 
his  life  discussing  such  questions  as  those  which  occupied 
the  minds  of  men  in  the  sixth  century,  and  in  reference 
to  which  Monophysite  was  at  war  with  Monophysite,  as 
well  as  with  his  orthodox  opponents  ?  Was  Christ's  body 
corruptible  or  incorruptible — naturally  liable  to  death,  suf- 
fering, need,  and  weakness,  or  liable  only  because  and  when 
the  Logos  willed  ?  was  it  created  or  uncreated  ?  nay,  could 
it  be  said  after  the  union  with  the  Logos  to  exist  at  all  ? 
Such  were  the  questions  on  which  men  felt  keenly  in  that 
unhappy  age,  and  in  connection  with  which  they  be- 
stowed on  each  other  nicknames  offensive  in  meaning,  un- 
musical in  sound;  the  deniers  of  the  corruptibility  calling 
their  antagonists  Phthartolatrae,  worshippers  of  the  cor- 
ruptible; the  asserters  of  corruptibility  retorting  on  their 
opponents  with  the  countercharge  of  Aphthartodoketism ;' 
the  parties  in  the  question  whether  the  body  of  Christ  after 
union  with  the  Logos  was  to  be  regarded  as  created  or  as 
uncreated,  calling  each  other  in  kindred  spirit  Aktistetes 
and  Ktistolators;  while  those  who  completed  the  reductio 
ad  absurdum  of  Monophysitism,  by  denying  all  distinctive 
reality  to  the  humanity  of  Christ  after  the  union,  went  by 
the  name  of  Niobites,  taken  from  the  surname  of  the  founder, 

1  See  for  further  particulars  in  reference  to  this  controversy,  Lect.  vi. 


The  Patristic    Christology.  69 

Stephen,  an  Alexandrian  Sophist.  Two  other  disputes  em- 
braced within  the  Monophysitic  controversy  were  of  a 
more  dignified  character;  those,  viz.,  relating  to  the  par- 
ticipation of  the  Logos  in  Christ's  sufferings,  and  to  the 
knowledge  possessed  by  Christ's  human  soul.  But  it  is  a 
curious  indication  of  the  confused  nature  of  the  strife  going 
on  in  those  years,  to  find  parties  in  the  latter  of  these  twrj 
disputes  changing  sides, — the  Monophysites  maintaining 
the  position  which  one  would  have  expected  the  defenders 
of  the  Chalcedonian  formula  to  take  up.  The  Agnoetes, 
that  is  to  say,  those  who  asserted  that  the  human  soul  of 
Christ  was  like  ours,  even  in  respect  of  ignorance,  were  a 
section  of  the  Monophysite  party;  and  their  opponents  em- 
braced not  merely  the  straiter  sect  of  the  Monophysites, 
but  the  Orthodox,  who,  as  represented,  e.g.,  by  Bede,  taught 
that  Christ  from  His  conception  was  full  of  wisdom,  and 
therefore  did  not  really  grow  in  knowledge  as  in  stature. 
Amid  the  smoke  of  battle  men  had  got  bewildered,  and, 
fighting  at  random,  fired  upon  their  own  side.1 

Passing,  then,  without  any  great  effort  of  self-denial, 
from  these  obscure  wranglings,  and  leaping  over,  also  with- 
out much  regret,  the  Monothelite  controversies  which  fol- 
lowed in  what  may  called  the  era  of  anatomical  Christology, 
I  shall  close  this  lecture  with  brief  notices  of  two  rep- 
resentative men  with  whom  we  shall  hereafter  find  it 
convenient  to  have  some  acquaintance:  one  of  them  show- 
ing the  state  of  Christology  after  the  close  of  the  contro- 
versy concerning  the  two  wills,  and  before  the  rise  of  the 
Adoptian  controversy;  the  other  exhibiting  the  prevailing 
Christology  of  the  mediaeval  period,  when  the  process  of 
reaction  which  set  in  after  the  Council  of  Frankfort,  in  the 
direction  of  a  one-sided  assertion  of  Christ's  divinity,  had 
attained  its  complete  development.  I  refer  to  John  of 
Damascus,  who  flourished  about  the  middle  of  the  eighth 
century,  and  Thomas  Aquinas,  one  of  the  great  lights  of 
the  thirteenth. 

i  See  on  this  curious  phenomenon,  Dorner,  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  i.  p. 
142;  and  Baur,  die  Lehre.  von  der  Dreieinigkeit,  vol.  ii.  pp.  87-92.  Dorner  and 
Baur  agree  in  their  view  of  the  Agnostic  controversy,  and  give  the  same  reore 
6entation  as  that  in  the  text. 


JO  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

John  of  Damascus  carried  the  distinctness  of  the  natures 
to  its  utmost  limit,  short  of  the  recognition  of  two  hypos- 
tases in  the  one  Christ.  He  advocated  the  doctrine  of  two 
wills,  on  the  ground  that  the  faculty  of  willing  is  an 
essential  attribute  of  rational  natures.1  The  controversy 
concerning  the  two  wills  had  arisen  within  the  Church,  and 
between  the  adherents  to  the  Chalcedonian  formula,  because 
it  was  not  self-evident  to  which  of  the  two  categories,  the 
natures  or  the  person,  the  will  should  be  referred.  Doubt 
on  this  point  was  very  excusable,  inasmuch  as  a  good 
deal  could  be  said  on  both  sides.  John  recognises  the 
legitimacy  of  such  perplexity  by  virtually  treating  the  will 
as  a  matter  pertaining  both  to  the  natures  and  to  the  per- 
son. "  To  will,"  he  says,  "  in  the  abstract — the  will  faculty  is 
physical,  but  to  will  thus  and  thus  is  personal!"*  There 
are  two  will  faculties  but  only  one  wilier,  the  one  Christ 
who  wills  according  to  both  natures  using  the  will  faculty 
of  each.*  On  the  principle  of  conceding  to  each  nature  all 
its  natural  properties,  John  ascribes  to  the  human  will 
the  faculty  of  self-determination  {to  avvtkov6iov)\  but  this  is 
very  much  a  matter  of  form,  for  he  represents  the  human 
soul  of  Christ  as  willing  freely  the  things  which  the  divine 
will  wished  it  to  will.4  His  doctrine,  therefore,  while 
dyothelitic  in  one  respect,  is  monothelitic  in  another;  the 
human  will  being  in  effect  reduced  to  the  position  of  a 
natural  impulse  of  desire  to  do  this,  to  shun  that,  to  par- 
take of  food,  to  sleep,  etc.,  and  entering  only  as  a  momentum 
into  the  one  determining  will  of  the  one  Christ.6 

Recognising  in  the  above  fashion  two  wills,  the  Damas- 

1  De  Duabus  Voluntatibus,  c.  22. 

5  De  Duabus  Voluntatibus,  c.  24:  BeXtjtixov  Z&ov  6  avQpoonoS'  to  Se 
fjsXrjrov  ov  <pv6ixov  fiovov ,  aXXd  xoci  yvco/tcixov,  hcci  v7ro6rariHov. 
'AXX  ov  itaS  avOpcoTtoS  go6<xvtgoS  Oe'Xet,  ovSs  to  ccvto'  (Sots  to  r&5s 
fjt'Xsiv  xaXooS  rj  xaxais,  7}  to  ti  fte'Xeiv,  to  de,  rj  kxeivo,  ov  cpvdinov 
dXXd  yvcojuixov,  xal  v7to6T<XTix6v. 

3  De  Fide  Orthodoxa,  lib.  iii.  cap.  xiv.:  knsiBrj  Toivovv  eiS  jitsv  6  Xpi6Toi 
nai  uia  avTov  fj  v7todTa6ii,  eh  xai  6  avToS  e6tiv  6  QeXgov  Bsiixg5s  ts 
xa:  arOtf 63777V &>;. 

*  De  Fide  Orthodoxa,  lib.  iii.  c.  xviii.:  rj^eXs  /xiv  ai>T Ezov6icoi  xivovlievt, 
r)  tov  Kvpiov  ipvx??,  dXX'  kxeivct  avTSzovdiaoi  rjOsXs  a  f)  Qsia  avToi 
bc'XrjdiS  tyjeXe  Os'Xetv  ocvTrjv. 

5  So  Dorner,  div.  ii.  vol.  i.  p.  210. 


The  Patristic    Christology.  7 x 

cene,  carrying  out  the  theory  embodied  in  the  phrase  "  oi 
two  and  in  two  distinct  natures,"  asserts  a  duality  in  respect 
to  everything  pertaining  to  the  nature  of  God  and  of  man 
in  common.  Christ  has  all  the  things  which  the  Father 
hath,  except  the  property  of  being  unbegotten;  He  has  all 
the  things  which  the  first  Adam  had,  except  sin  alone. 
Therefore  He  has  two  physical  wills,  two  physical  energies, 
two  physical  faculties  of  self-determination  (avrs^ov^ia),  two 
wisdoms  and  knowledges.1  John  even  goes  the  length  of 
conceding  to  Christ's  humanity  personality,  but  not  separate 
independent  personality:  It  was  without  hypostasis  in  itself, 
never  having  had  an  independent  subsistence;  but  it  became 
enhypostatized  through  union  with  the  Logos.  No  nature, 
he  admits,  can  be  without  hypostasis,  nature  apart  from 
individuality  being  a  mere  abstraction;  but  then  he  holds 
that  the  two  natures  united  in  Christ  do  not  necessarily 
possess  separate  hypostases;  they  may  meet  in  one  hypos- 
tasis, so  that  they  shall  neither  be  without  hypostasis  nor 
possess  each  a  peculiar  hypostasis,  but  have  both  one  and 
the  same.2  In  this  way  Christ  becomes  a  human  individual, 
and  the  person  of  Christ  is  to  be  regarded  as  composite,* 

Still,  in  spite  of  his  efforts  to  make  it  formally  complete, 
the  humanity  of  Christ  in  the  system  of  the  Damascene  re- 
mained a  lifeless  thing.  The  anatomical  process  to  which 
the  human  nature  was  subjected  left  it  an  inanimate  carcase 
with  the  form  and  features  of  a  man,  but  without  the  inspir- 
ing soul.  Already  what  Dorner  happily  calls  the  tran- 
substantiating process  has  begun,  which  was  to  evacuate 
Christ's  humanity  of  all  its  contents,  and  leave  only  the 
outward  shell  with  a  God  within.  In  several  most  im- 
portant respects,  Christ,  as  exhibited  in  John's  system, — the 
last  important  utterance  of  the  Greek  Church  on  the  subject 
of  Christology, — is  not  our  brother,  like  us  in  all  points 
save  sin.  At  the  very  first  stage  of  His  incarnate  history 
there  is  an  ominous  difference  between  Him  and  us.  His 
body  was  not  formed  in  the  womb  of  the  Virgin  by  gradual 


1  De  Fide  Orthodoxa,  lib.  iii.  cap.  xiii. 

8  De  Fide  Orthodoxa,  lib.  iii.  c.  ix. 

3  De  Fide  Orthodoxa,  lib.  iii.  c.  iii.:  sis  /uiav  x>Tto6ra6iv  (Si'ivBerov. 


j  2  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

minute  additions,  but  was  perfected  at  once.1  Then  the 
soul  of  the  holy  child  knew  no  growth  in  wisdom.  Jesus  is 
said  to  have  increased  in  wisdom  and  stature;  because  He 
did  indeed  grow  in  stature,  and  because  He  made  the  mani- 
festation of  the  indwelling  wisdom  keep  pace  with  that 
growth:3  just  the  old  doctrine  of  Cyril,  who  at  this  distance 
appears  a  saint,  and  is  quoted  without  hesitation  as  an 
orthodox  Father.  Doubtless  the  flesh  of  our  Lord  was  per 
sc  ignorant;  but  then,  in  virtue  of  the  identity  of  the  hy- 
postasis and  the  indissoluble  union,  His  soul  was  enriched 
with  the  knowledge  of  future  things;3  and  to  assert  that  it 
really  grew  in  wisdom  and  grace,  as  receiving  increment 
of  these,  is  to  deny  that  the  union  was  formed  ab  initio — is 
to  deny  the  hypostatic  union  altogether.  If  the  flesh  was 
truly  united  to  Deity  from  the  first  moment  of  conception, 
and  possessed  hypostatic  identity  therewith,  how  could  it 
fail  to  be  perfectly  enriched  with  all  wisdom  and  grace  ?' 
Of  course  temptation  was  not  a  very  serious  affair  for  such 
a  Christ.  He  was  tempted  from  without,  apart  from  any 
internal  suggestions,  and  He  repelled  and  dissipated  the 
assaults  of  the  enemy  like  smoke?  In  like  manner  Christ 
had  no  personal  need  for  prayer;  He  prayed  simply  as  sus- 
taining our  person  and  performing  our  part,  asking  what  He 
did  not  need  by  way  of  example  to  us;  teaching  us  to  ask 
of  God  and  to  raise  our  souls  to  Him,  and  through  His  holy 
mind  preparing  a  way  for  our  ascent  to  the  throne  of  grace.6 
While  carrying  the  formal  doctrine  of  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  natures  to  its  utmost  limits,  John  considered  it 

1  De  Fide  Orthodoxa,  lib.  iii.  c.  ii.:  ov  ralS  xazd  fxixpov  izpo6Q?}xaiS 
anapzi^oiiivov  zov  6xr)nazoS'  dXX'  vcp  tv  zeXEiaabavroS. 

-  De  Fide  Orthodoxa,  lib.  iii.  c.  xxii.:  zff  /.iiv  ?}Xixia  avcoov,  Sid  Si  zijS 
ccvir/6eooi  zrjs  rjXixiai  xrjv  kwxdpxov6av  avzao  6o<piav  sis  q>avipoo6iv 
ayoov. 

;i  De  Fide  Orthodoxa,  lib.  iii.  c.  xxi.:  Sid  Si  zrjv  r?/5  vito<5zd6EooS  zavzo- 
ryjza  xai  zrjv  d.Sid6na6zov  'ivoo6iv  7TazE7cXovzr/dEv  r)  zov  Kvpiov 
ipvxv  zrjv  tgov  jueXXovzojv  yvoodiv. 

4  De  Fide  Orthodoxa,  lib.  iii.  c.  xxii. 

5  De  Fide  Orthodoxa,  lib.  iii.  c.  xx.:   a>J  xanvov  SieXv6ev. 

6  De  Fide  Orthodoxa,  lib.  iii.  c.  xxiv.:  zo  rjuszEpov  otxEiovjUEVo?  itpo6oo- 
Ttov,  xai  zvtkSv  Iv  savraj  to  ijuizEpov,  xai  vTtoypani/uoS  r)ulv  ysvo- 
uevoi,  xai  SiSa6xoov  ?)/.<a?  napa  Heov  airs.1v,  xai  npoS  avzov  dva- 
rtiveeOai,  xai  Sid  zov  dyiov  avzov  vov  oSotzoiujv  i/i.uv  z?jv  npoi 
irisov  dva/jadiv. 


The  Patristic    Christology.  j$ 

his  duty  to  do  what  he  could  towards  the  establishment 
of  a  communion  between  the  natures  as  asserted  in  the  for- 
mula of  Chalcedon.  For  this  purpose  he  lays  stress  on  the 
hypostatic  union,  the  permeation  of  the  human  by  the  di- 
vine,1 and  the  mutual  communication  of  names  which  takes 
place  between  the  natures.2  The  last-mentioned  means  of 
communion  amounts  to  nothing  more  than  the  verbal  com- 
munication of  attributes  taught  by  the  Reformed  Christolo- 
gy; but  the  second,  the  permeation  (TtepixoSpt/ois),  involves 
something  approaching  at  least  to  the  real  communication 
of  the  Lutherans.  To  this  permeation,  as  well  as  to  the 
hypostatic  union,  is  due  the  perfection  in  knowledge  ab 
initio  of  the  human  soul  of  Christ  already  spoken  of.  Hence 
also  it  comes  that  the  flesh  of  Christ  is  life-giving,  and  that 
the  human  will  of  Christ  is  omnipotent,  though  in  itself 
limited  in  power.3  These  are  instances  in  which  the  divini- 
ty communicates  to  the  humanity  its  own  glorious  proper- 
ties, and  by  the  communication  in  a  manner  deifies  it. 

As  in  the  Cyrillian  and  the  Lutheran  Christologies,  so  in 
the  system  of  John,  the  communication  of  attributes  is  all 
on  one  side.  There  is  no  kind  of  communication  by  which 
the  divine  nature  becomes  partaker  of  the  humiliation  of 
humanity,  corresponding  to  that  by  which  the  human  na- 
ture becomes  partaker  of  the  glories  of  divinity.  The  di- 
vinity communicates  to  the  body  its  proper  virtues,  but  it 
remains  non-participant  in  the  sufferings  of  the  flesh.4  The 
Logos  is  indeed  spoken  of  as  appropriating  to  itself  the  hu- 
manities; but  that  is  meant  simply  in  the  sense  that  the 
flesh  and  all  its  properties  are  connected  with  it  personally.' 
For  the  divine  nature  in  Christ,  the  words  humiliation,  ser- 
vice, suffering,  have  no  real  sense.     Christ,  we  are  told,  was 

1  7tsptxoopr;6ii.  2  Tponoi  riji  avridodecoi,  lib.  iii.  c.  iii. 

3  De  Fide  OrlhodoxS,  lib.  iii.  c.  xviii.  Contrasting  the  divine  and  human  wills 
in  Christ,  John  represents  the  former  as  without  beginning,  and  omnipotent  and 
apathetic;  the  latter,  as  having  a  beginning  in  time,  subject  to  physical  and  sinless 
affections,  and  naturally  not  all-powerful,  but  having  become  truly  and  physically 
the  property  of  God  the  Logos;  it  also  is  thereby  rendered  almighty.  <yj  de  tov 
&eov  \6yov  aA?;Go35  uai  ycazd  <pv6iv  yEvouevrj,  xai  7ravTo8vrajuoS. 

*  De  Fide  Orthodoxa,  lib.  iii.  c.  xv.:  Tgjv  uiv  ovv  ovxeicov  avx^udrcov 
f)  Beozrji  tc3  6oojuart  jneradiSoodiv  avrt/  Si  tgov  t%$  <5apx6i  nafjr2i- 
diajtievsz  df.iaroxoi. 

6  De  Fide  Orthodoxa,  lib.  iii. c.  iii.:  ointiovzai  8s  ra  <xvf}poJiziva.  6  ^  oyoS. 


74  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

not  a  servant — to  teach  otherwise  is  to  Nestorianize;  all 
that  we  may  say  is,  that  the  flesh  of  Christ  per  se,  and  con- 
ceived of  as  not  united  to  the  Word,  was  of  servile  nature.1 
The  relation  of  the  Logos  to  the  passion  is  illustrated  by 
the  metaphor  of  a  tree  on  which  the  sun  shines  being  cut 
down  with  an  axe.  The  axe  fells  the  tree,  but  it  does  no 
harm  to  the  sunbeams;  and  so  in  like  manner  the  divinity 
of  the  Logos,  though  united  hypostatically  to  the  flesh,  re- 
mains impassible  while  the  flesh  suffers.2  What  a  loose,  in- 
adequate idea  of  the  Incarnation  is  suggested  by  such  a 
comparison  !  The  Logos  in  the  humanity  like  the  sun- 
light among  the  branches  of  an  oak  !  One  is  thrown  back 
on  the  question  whether,  on  such  a  conception  of  the  Divine 
Being  as  is  implied  in  the  figure,  an  incarnation  be  possi- 
ble; and  our  doubts  are  deepened  when  we  observe  how 
John  speaks  of  the  great  mystery  of  godliness  in  the  open- 
ing chapter  of  the  book  which  treats  of  the  divine  economy 
of  the  Incarnation.  "  Bending  the  heavens,  He  descends; 
that  is,  humbling  without  humiliation  His  majesty,  which 
cannot  be  humbled,  He  descends  to  the  level  of  His  ser- 
vants, by  a  condescension  inexpressible  and  inconceivable."' 
The  practical  import  of  this  self-cancelling  sentence  is:  the 
Scriptures  teach  that  He  who  was  in  the  form  of  God  hum- 
bled Himself,  and  therefore  we  must  teach  likewise;  but 
the  thing  taught  is  philosophically  impossible. 

Passing  now  from  John  of  Damascus  to  Thomas  Aquinas, 
separated  from  the  former  by  an  interval  of  five  centuries,  we 
find  that  the  lapse  of  time  has  brought  along  with  it  a  great 
change  indeed,  but  a  change  more  in  the  method  of  treat- 
ment than  in  the  substance  of  the  doctrine.  Many  thoughts 
with  which  we  have  become  familiar,  through  the  writings 

1  De  Fide  Orthodox&,  lib.  iii.  c.  xxi.:  dovXr]  k6ziv  fj  6dpz,  si  u?)  rfvoaro 
rcZ  Seg>  Xoyep-  anas  6e  £VGo^ei6a  xatf  vit66za6iv,  ndoS  k(5rai  SovXtj; 
eU  y<xu  dov  6  Xpi6r6s  ov  Svvazat  fioLJ/l.o?  eavrcv  ".ivai  xai  KvpioS. 

■  De  Fide  Orthodoxd.  lib.  iii.  c.  xxvi.:  Et  yap  riXiov  SevSpao  litiXduitoY- 
roS,  rj  oc:ivr)  re/tiroi  to  SevSpov,  a.Tj.ct]zoz  v/»  •  ina%r>i  fiiaurrEi  o 
fjXioS,  rroA/\<y  uaXAov,  x.  r.  X. 

3  De  Fide  Ortkodoxd,  lib.  iii.  c.  i.:  KXivaS  ovpavovS  xaTspxET<xv  *ov- 
te6ti  to  d.Tcaizivu)Tov  ai)Tov  vipoi  aTansivooToaZ  Tantivoo6a<i,  6vy- 
xocTa/jaiyEi  roFS  'eavTov  SovXoiS  6vyxa.Ta.fia.6iv  d<ppa6Tov  tz  xai 
dxaTocXr/TCTOv. 


The  Patristic  Cliristology.  J  5 

of  John,  reappear  in  the  pages  of  Thomas,  the  Eastern  monk 
being,  in  fact,  the  chief  Christological  authority  of  the  great 
Western  scholastic.  Three  ideas,  however,  present  them- 
selves to  view  in  the  Sinnma,  which,  if  not  entirely  new  in 
the  history  of  the  dogma,  are  developed  in  that  work  with 
a  fulness  which  justifies  us  in  connecting  them  with  the  name 
of  its  author.  These  ideas  are:  the  conception  of  the  Incar- 
nation as  an  incarnation,  not  of  the  divine  nature,  but  of  a 
divine  person;  the  conception  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
as  a  recipient  of  grace;  and  the  conception  of  Christ  in  His 
humanity  as  the  Head  of  the  Church.  With  respect  to  the 
first  of  these  topics,  the  view  of  the  Church  had  not  before 
Thomas'  time  assumed  a  fixed  form,  as  we  learn  from  the 
sentences  of  Peter  the  Lombard,  in  which  the  vacillating  state 
of  opinion  is  faithfully  reflected.  Peter  proposes  for  dis- 
cussion the  question,  Whether  a  person  or  a  nature  assumed 
humanity,  and  whether  the  nature  of  God  was  incarnated? 
and  he  answers  the  question  by  virtually  allowing  validity 
to  both  alternatives.  "  Desiring,"  he  says,  "  to  remove  from 
the  sacred  pages  every  trace  of  falsehood  and  contradiction, 
we  agree  with  orthodox  Fathers  and  catholic  doctors  in 
saying  both  that  the  person  of  the  Son  assumed  human 
nature,  and  that  the  divine  nature  was  united  to  human  na- 
ture in  the  Son,  and  united  and  assumed  it  to  itself;  on  which 
account  .the  divine  nature  is  truly  said  to  be  incarnate."  ' 
Thomas,  on  the  other  hand,  while  allowing  that  the  latter 
mode  of  putting  the  matter  was  not  wholly  inadmissible, 
pronounced  in  favor  of  the  former  alternative  as  the  only  ap- 
propriate way  of  stating  the  fact.2  But  what  did  he  mean  by 
taking  up  this  position  ?  The  view  that  the  union  exhibited 
in  the  Word  Incarnate  was  made  not  in  natnrd,  but  in  persona, 
might  be  intended  simply  to  serve  the  purpose  of  adjusting 
the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity; 
the  first  and  third  persons  of  the  Trinity  being  exempted 
from  participating  in  the  Incarnation,  by  the  exclusion  of 

1  Sentenliarwn,  lib.  iii.  distinct,  v.:  Dicentes,  et  personam  filii  assumpsisse 
naturam  humanam  et  naturam  divinam  humanae  naturae  in  filio  unitam,  eamque 
sibi  unisse  vel  assumpsisse,  unde  et  vere  incarnata  dicitur. 

*  Summa,  pars  iii.  qu.  ii.  artt.  i.  ii.  The  questions  are  put  thus:  Utrum  unio 
verbi  incarnati  sit  fac'.i  in  natura.     Utrum  unio  verbi  incarnati  sit  facto  in  persona. 


76  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

the  common  divine  nature  from  all  direct  participation 
therein.  Or  the  thesis  might  be  designed  to  guard  against 
monophysite  confusion,  and  to  affirm  with  the  greatest 
possible  emphasis  the  distinctness  of  the  two  natures  of 
Christ  within  the  personal  unity.  Or,  finally,  it  is  conceiv- 
able that  the  position  in  question  might  be  laid  down  by 
one  who  meant  to  teach  that  the  distinctive  attributes  of 
the  divine  nature,  omniscience,  omnipotence,  etc.,  while 
still  possessed  by  the  divine  person  who  became  man,  did 
not  enter  into  the  incarnate  state,  and  reveal  themselves  in 
the  incarnate  life  of  the  God-man.  Now  there  can  be  no 
doubt  that  Thomas,  in  formulating  his  doctrine  of  the  Incar- 
nation, had  in  view  the  former  two  of  these  three  purposes;1 
but  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  good  ground  for  ascrib- 
ing to  him  the  idea  of  a  double  life  of  the  Logos  implied  in 
the  third  hypothetical  explanation  of  his  meaning;  though, 
of  course,  the  question  may  be  raised  whether  that  idea  be 
not  a  logical  consequence  of  his  theory.  Dorner  seems  in- 
clined to  think  otherwise.  He  represents  the  significance 
of  the  Incarnation,  in  Thomas'  view,  as  being  limited  to  the 
fact  that  the  divine  person  of  the  Son,  as  distinct  from  His 
divine  nature,  was  inserted  into  the  human  nature;  the 
divine  personality  standing,  of  course,  in  intimate  connec- 
tion with  its  own  nature,  but  not  allowing  any  part  of  it  to 
pass  over  into  the  human  nature.  This  limitation,  which 
he  characterizes  as  remarkable,  he  represents  as  being  made 
not  merely  for  Trinitarian  reasons,  but  also  in  order  to 
render  the  problem  of  Incarnation  an  easier  one,  which  in 
Dorner's  judgment  is  equivalent  to  evading  the  problem 
in  one  essential  particular,  or  even  to  letting  it  entirely 
fall.2  Baur,  on  the  other  hand,  recognises  in  Thomas'  way 
of  stating  the  Incarnation,  simply  the  development  of  the 

Under  quaestio  iii.  art.  ii.  he  discusses  the  question,  "Utrum  divinae  naturae 

conveniat  assumere,"  stating  as  an  objection  that  if  it  belonged  to  the  nature  to 

me,  it  would  follow  that  it  belonged  to  the  three  persons,  and  thus  the  Father 

would  have  assumed  human  nature  as  well  as  the  Son.     This  objection  he  meets 

■  that  the  divine  nature  is  the  principium  assumptionis,  but  not  itself  the 

terminus  assumptionis.    Esse  terminum  assumptions  non  convenit  naturae  divinae 

secundum  seipsum,  sed  ratione  personae  in  qua  consideratur.  Et  ideo  primo  quidem 

me  persona  dicitur  assumere. 

?  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  i.  pp.  331,  332. 


The  Patristic    Christology.  77 

ecclesiastical  doctrine,  that  in  Christ  two  natures,  distinct 
in  themselves,  and  remaining  distinct  after  the  union,  were 
united  in  one  person.1  According  to  this  view,  the  more 
correct  one,  as  it  appears  to  me,  the  new  element  in  Aquinas' 
formula  was  not  the  promulgation  of  a  new  theory,  but 
simply  a  greater  measure  of  strictness  in  adapting  the  form 
of  expression  to  the  established  theory.  The  sense  in 
which  Aquinas  meant  his  thesis  to  be  understood,  may  be 
gathered  from  the  use  to  which  he  puts  it  in  solving  prob- 
lems respecting  the  knowledge  and  the  power  possessed 
by  Christ's  human  soul.  Thus  the  question,  Had  Christ 
any  knowledge  besides  the  divine  ?  is  decided  in  the  affirm- 
ative, because  the  union  affected  only  the  personal  being, 
and  knowledge  belongs  to  the  person  only  in  virtue  of  its 
being  an  attribute  of  one  or  other  of  the  natures.  Duality 
of  knowledge  therefore  follows  from  the  duality  of  natures, 
unless  we  mutilate  the  human  nature,  and  deprive  it  of  an 
attribute  which  it  possesses  in  all  other  men.2  The  ques- 
tion whether  Christ's  soul  possessed  the  particular  species 
of  knowledge  called  the  knowledge  of  the  blessed,  is  an- 
swered affirmatively  by  the  application  of  the  same  prin- 
ciple; the  objection,  that  a  knowledge  which  the  saints 
have  by  participation  in  the  divine  light  cannot  be  ascribed 
to  a  being  who,  as  divine,  had  not  His  light  by  participa- 
tion, but  as  an  essential  attribute  of  His  indwelling  divinity, 
being  disposed  of  by  the  remark  that  divinity  was  united  to 
the  humanity  of  Christ  as  to  the  person,  not  as  to  the 
essence  or  nature,  and  that  with  the  unity  of  the  person  the 
distinction  of  natures  remains.  The  consequence  is,  that 
the  soul  of  Christ,  which  is  a  part  of  the  human  nature,  is, 
by  a  certain  light  borrowed  from  the  divine  nature,  per- 
fected unto  the  blessed  knowledge  whether  God  is  seen  as 
He  is.*     Once  more  the  question,  whether  the  soul  of  Christ 

1  Die  Christliche  Lehre  von  der  Dreieinigkeit  und  Mens chwer dung  Gottes, 
Zweite  Theil,  p.  795. 

*  Pars  tertia,  quaest.  ix.  art.  i.:  Ex  parte  ipsius  unionis  non  potest  poni  in  Christo 
aliqua  scientia.  Nam  unio  ilia  ad  esse  personale,  scientia  autem  non  convenit 
personae  nisi  ratione  alicujus  naturae. 

3  Quaest.  ix.  art.  ii.  The  question  is:  Utrum  Christus  habuerit  scientiam  quara 
habent  beati  vel  comprehensores.  In  favour  of  the  negative,  Thomas  conceives 
the  following  argument  as  being  advanced:  Scientia  beatorum  est  per  participati- 


78  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

had  absolute  omnipotence,  is  decided  in  the  negative;  be- 
cause in  the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation  the  union  is  so  made 
in  the  person  that  the  distinction  of  natures  remains,  each 
nature  retaining  that  which  is  proper  to  itself.1  It  is  easy 
to  see  from  these  examples  that  Thomas'  way  of  stating 
the  doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  really  amounted  to  little 
more  than  the  formula,  that  in  Christ  two  distinct  natures 
were  united  in  one  person.  In  the  Text  lecture  we  shall 
find  the  same  mode  of  stating  the  aoctrine  reappearing  in 
the  Reformed  Christology  in  the  same  interest,  i.e.  as  a 
means  of  emphasizing  and  guarding  the  distinctness  of  the 
united  natures. 

Passing  to  the  second  of  the  three  thoughts  character- 
istic of  the  Christological  system  set  forth  in  the  Summa, 
the  conception  of  Christ  as  the  recipient  of  grace,  Thomas 
divided  the  grace  conferred  into  two  parts, — the  grace  of 
union,  that  is,  the  honour  bestowed  upon  the  human  nature 
of  the  Incarnate  Son  of  God  in  being  united  to  divinity, 
and  habitual  grace.  He  deemed  it  necessary  to  ascribe  to 
Christ  the  latter  sort  of  grace  for  three  reasons.  First, 
because  His  soul  was  united  to  the  Logos,  it  being  evident 
that  the  nearer  anything  of  a  receptive  nature  is  to  a  source 
of  influence,  the  more  it  must  participate  of  its  influence. 
Second,  on  account  of  the  nobility  of  that  soul  whose  activ- 
ities behoved  to  come  as  near  as  possible  to  God  in  knowl- 
edge and  love,  for  which  end  the  human  nature  needed  to 
be  elevated  by  grace.  Third,  on  account  of  Christ's  re- 
lation as  man  to  the  human  race,  that  viz.  of  Mediator, 
which  required  Him  to  have  grace  in  Himself  that  it  might 
overflow  from   Him  to  others.2     But  a  previous   question 

onera  divini  luminis  secundum  illud,  Ps.  xxxvi.  10.  In  famine  tito  videbimus  lumen. 
Sed  Christus  non  habuil  lumen  divinum  lanquam  participatum,  sed  ipsam  divini- 
tatem  in  se  habuit  substantialiter  manentem.  To  which  he  replies:  Divinitas  unita 
est  humanitati  Christi  secundum  personam  non  secundum  essentiam  vel  naturam; 
sed  cum  unitate  personae  remanet  distinctio  naturarum.  Et  ideo  anima  Christi, 
quae  est  pars  humanae  naturae,  per  aliquod  lumen  participatum  a  nalura  divina 
perfecta  est  ad  scientiam  beatam  qua  Ueus  per  essentiam  videtur. 

1  Quaest.  xiii.  art.  i. :  In  mysterio  incarnationis  ita  facta  est  unio  in  persona, 
quod  tamen  remansit  distinctio  naturarum  utraque  scilicet  natura  retinente  id  quod 
silii  est  proprium  .  .  .  Cum  igitur  anima  Christi  sit  pars  humanae  naturae,  im- 
|    -     lile  est  quod  omnipotentiam  habeat. 

-  Par3  iii.  quaest.  vii.  (De  Gratia  Christi,  prout  est  quidam  singulans  homo)  art.  u 


The  Patristic    Christology.  79 

naturally  arises,  viz.,  Was  not  the  communication  of  hab- 
itual grace  rendered  superfluous  by  the  fact  of  union  ?  and 
a  little  consideration  suffices  to  satisfy  us  that  the  idea  of 
such  a  communication  has  for  its  presupposition  a  very 
emphatic  assertion  of  the  distinctness  of  the  natures  within 
the  union.  Accordingly,  we  find  that  Thomas  disposes  of 
this  very  objection  by  falling  back  on  the  distinction. 
Having  stated  as  an  argument  against  ascribing  to  Christ 
habitual  grace,  that  He  is  God,  not  participatively,  but 
according  to  truth,  he  disposes  of  it  by  saying  that  Christ 
is  true  God  as  to  His  person  and  His  divine  nature;  but 
inasmuch  as  with  the  unity  of  the  person  the  distinction 
of  natures  remains,  the  soul  of  Christ  is  not  by  its  essence 
divine,  and  therefore  it  can  become  divine  only  as  believers 
do,  viz.  by  participation,  which  is  according  to  grace.1  The 
communication  of  grace,  that  is  to  say,  is  to  be  regarded  in 
the  light  of  a  corollary  from  that  view  of  Christ's  person 
which  emphasizes  the  distinctness  of  the  natures;  just  as 
the  communication  of  properties  is  a  corollary  from  that 
view  of  Christ's  person  which  allows  the  distinction  to  be 
eclipsed  by  the  unity.  This  remark  will  prepare  us  to  un- 
derstand how  it  came  to  pass  that  the  Reformed  Christol- 
ogists  espoused  the  former  of  these  ideas,  as  taught  by 
Thomas;  while  the  Lutheran  Christologists,  on  the  other 
hand,  patronized  the  latter,  and  the  kindred  notion  of 
physical  pervasion  as  taught  by  John  of  Damascus. 

Aquinas  represented  Christ  as  being  a  recipient  of  grace 
in  a  double  capacity;  as  a  singular  man,  and  as  the  Head 
of  the  Church;  the  grace  being  in  both  cases  the  same  as  to 
essence,  differing  solely  as  to  the  ground  and  reason  of 
communication.2  This  conception  of  Christ  as  the  head  of 
the  Church  is  the  third  prominent  idea  in  the  Christology 

1  Pars  iii.  quaest.  vii.  art.  i.  The  objection  is:  Gratia  est  quaedam  participatio 
divinitatis  in  creatura  rationali  secundum  illud,  2  Petri  i.  3.  Per  quern  maxima 
et  pretiosa  promissa  nobis  donavit  ut  divinae  simus  consortes  naturae.  And  the 
reply:  Christus  est  verus  Deus  sec.  personam  et  naturam  divinam.  Sed  quia  cum 
unitate  personae  remanet  distinctio  naturarum  anima  Christi  non  est  per  suam  es- 
sentiam  divina.  Unde  oportet  quod  fiat  divina  per  participalionem  quae  est  sec. 
gratiam. 

2  Quaestio  viii.  (De  Gratia  Christi,  prout  est  caput  Ecclesiae)  art.  v.:  Eadem 
est  sec.  essentiam  gratia  personalis  qua  anima  Christi  est  justificata,  et  gratia  ejus, 
sec.  quam  est  caput  ecclesiae  justificans  alios;  differt  tamen  sec.  rationem. 


80  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

of  the  great  schoolman,  well  characterized  by  Baur  as  one 
of  those  in  which  he  rises  above  the  dry  formalism  of  the 
scholastic  theology.1  The  Christological  value  of  this  idea, 
as  of  the  one  preceding,  lies  in  the  implied  assertion  of  the 
likeness  of  Christ  in  all  essential  respects  to  His  brethren. 
While  as  the  Head,  exalted  above  all,  He  is  still  the  rep- 
resentative of  a  mystical  body,  to  whom  He  stands  in  the 
relation  of  Primus  inter  pares.  This  is  not  indeed  the 
aspect  of  the  truth  emphasized  by  Aquinas;  for  what  he 
insists  on  is  rather  the  superiority  than  the  similitude. 
Christ  is  head,  according  to  the  analogy  of  the  human 
head,  in  respect  of  order,  perfection,  and  virtue.  As  the 
head  of  a  human  body  is  the  first  part  of  man  beginning 
from  above,  so  Christ  as  to  the  grace  of  nearness  to  God  is 
first  and  highest;  as  to  the  head  of  the  human  body  belongs 
the  perfection  of  containing  within  itself  all  the  senses 
external  and  internal,  while  in  the  other  members  is  the 
sense  of  touch  alone,  so  Christ  is  perfect  as  possessing  the 
plenitude  of  all  graces;  and  as  the  powers,  motion,  and 
government  of  all  the  members  of  the  body  are  centred 
in  the  head,  so  Christ  has  the  power  to  pour  grace  into 
all  the  members  of  the  Church;  and  on  all  these  accounts 
He  is  properly  called  the  Head  of  the  Church.2  Still,  it 
must  be  observed,  all  this  superiority  is  ascribed  to  Christ 
as  man.  To  an  objection  based  on  a  sentence  from  Au- 
gustine which  seems  to  teach  a  contrary  opinion,  Thomas 
replies,  that  while  to  give  grace  or  the  Holy  Spirit  belongs 
to  Christ  as  God  authoritatively,  it  also  belongs  to  Him-  as 
man  instrumentally,  inasmuch  as  His  humanity  was  the 
instrument  of  His  divinity.3  Another  objection  taken  to 
the  applicability  of  the  figure,  from  the  fact  that  the  head 
is  a  particular  member  receiving  influence  from  the  heart, 
while  Christ  is  the  universal  principle  of  the  whole  Church, 
he  disposes  of  thus:  The  head  has  a  manifest  eminence 
compared  with  the  other  members;  but  the  heart  has  a 
certain  secret  influence.  Therefore  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
invisibly  vivifies  and  unites  the  Church,  is  compared  to  the 
heart;  but  Christ  is  compared  to  the  head,  as  to  His  visible 

1  Dreieinigkeit,  ii.  p.  802. 

s  Quaestio  viii.  art.  i.  (Utrum  Christum  sit  caput  Ecclesiae).       3  Quaestio  viii.  art.  i. 


The  Patristic    Christology.  81 

nature,  as  a  man  is  set  over  other  men.1  As  a  man  over 
other  men,  therefore,  is  Christ  Head  of  the  Church;  so  that 
while  His  Headship  implies  supremacy,  it  no  less  clearly 
implies  fraternity. 

From  the  foregoing  exposition  it  will  have  appeared  that 
the  three  ideas  characteristic  of  the  Christological  system 
set  forth  in  the  Summa  all  point  in  one  direction,  that,  namely, 
of  the  emphatic  assertion  of  the  homoilsia  taught  in  our 
seventh  axiom:  Christ  in  all  possible  respects,  both  in  His 
human  nature  and  in  His  human  experience,  like  unto  His 
brethren.  But  on  looking  into  other  parts  of  that  system, 
we  find  that  what  is  given  with  one  hand  is  taken  back 
again  by  the  other.  The  Christ  of  Aquinas  is  after  all  not 
our  brother,  not  a  man,  but  only  a  ghastly  simulacrum.  In 
many  most  important  respects  He  is  not  like  the  members 
of  His  mystical  body.  Not  to  speak  of  His  material  part, 
which,  according  to  the  author  of  the  Summa,  was  perfectly 
formed  from  the  first  moment  of  conception,  and  born 
without  pain;2  the  soul  of  Christ  differed  from  ours  to  an 
extent  which  makes  us  feel  that  between  Him  and  us  there 
is  little  in  common.  Recipient  of  grace  in  all  its  plenitude, 
the  soul  of  Jesus  was  without  the  two  cardinal  graces  of 
faith  and  hope;  because,  forsooth,  the  possession  of  these, 
while  in  one  respect  a  merit,  is  in  another  a  defect.3  The 
gifts  of  knowledge,  on  the  other  hand,  imparted  to  Christ 
as  a  man,  made  the  gulf  between  Him  and  us,  already  too 
wide,  wider  still.  His  soul  possessed  at  once  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  blessed,  the  knowledge  which  comes  through 
innate  ideas,  and  the  knowledge  which  comes  through  the 
senses;  the  first  consisting  in  the  perfect  vision  of  God  and 

1  Quaestio  viii.  art.  i. :  Capiti  autem  comparatur  ipse  Christus  sec.  visibilem  nat- 
uram,  sec.  quam  homo  hominibus  praefertur. 

-  Quaestio  xxxiii.  (De  modo  et  ordine  conceptions  Christi)  art.  i.  (Utrum  corpus 
Chnsti  fuerit  formatum  in  primo  instanti  conceptions  ?)  The  answer  is:  In  prim.> 
instanti  quo  materia  adunata  pervenit  ad  locumlgenerationis  fuit  perfecte  formatum 
corpus  Christi,  et  assumptum.  The  painless  birth  is  taught  under  quaestio  xxxv. 
(De  nativitate  Christi)  art.  vi.:  Christus  est  egressus  ex  clauso  utero  matris,  et 
propter  hoc  in  illo  partu  nullus  fuit  dolor  sicut  nee  aliqua  corruptio;  sed  fuit  ibi 
maxima  jucunditas.  To  the  arguments  in  favour  of  the  contrary  position,  that 
it  behoved  Christ's  life  to  begin  as  it  ended,  with  pain,  and  that  the  pain  of  birth 
was  a  part  of  the  curse,  Aquinas  replies  that  the  pain  was  the  mother's,  not  the 
child's,  and  that  Christ  took  on  Him  death  voluntarily,  not  as  under  necessary  sub 
jection  to  the  curse.  3  Quaestio  vii.  (De  gratia  Christi)  art.  lii.  and  iv. 


82  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

of  all  things  in  the  mirror  of  the  Logos,  infinite  in  the  sense 
of  embracing  all  reality  though  not  all  possibility,  and  com- 
plete from  the  moment  of  conception,  admitting  of  no 
growth,  and  rendering  the  knowledge  gradually  acquired 
through  the  senses,  one  would  say,  superfluous,  as  the  moon 
is  superfluous  in  presence  of  the  sun,  and  causing  the  very 
faculty  for  acquiring  experimental  knowledge  to  degenerate 
into  a  mere  rudimentary  organ  dwarfed  by  disuse.1  This 
picture  of  a  humanity  which  is  inhuman,  or  at  all  events 
unearthly,  receives  the  finishing  touch  in  the  doctrine  that 
Christ,  even  in  the  days  of  His  humiliation,  was  a  compreJien- 
sor  a.s  well  as  a  viator- — one,  that  is,  who  had  already  reached 
the  goal,  as  well  as  one  hastening  on  toward  it,  and  as  such 
could  not  increase  in  grace  or  in  knowledge,  being  perfect 
from  the  first;  nor  in  felicity,  save  by  deliverance  from  the 
passibility  to  which  His  body  and  the  lower  part  of  His  soul 
were  subject  previous  to  the  resurrection ;  and  could  not  know 
at  all  by  experience  what  it  is  to  walk  by  faith,  and  to  be  sup- 
ported under  trial  by  hope.  How  can  such  a  Christ  as  this 
succour  us  when  are  tempted  ?  How  can  one  so  little  ac- 
quainted with  suffering  be  a  perfect  Captain  of  salvation  ? 
The  author  of  the  Summa  indeed  pleads  on  behalf  of  his  the- 
ory, that  the  goal  to  which  men  are  to  be  conducted  being  the 
beatific  vision,  and  the  medium  through  which  they  are  con- 
ducted being  the  humanity  of  Christ,  it  was  meet  that  the 
Captain  should  possess  what  the  army  led  are  destined  to  at- 
tain, seeing  that  the  cause  should  always  be  more  powerful 
than  the  object  on  which  it  exerts  its  force.3  But  the  argu- 
ment overlooks  the  fact  that  Christ's  present  power  is  de- 
rived in  great  measure  from  His  earthly  weakness,  and  that 
whilst  it  did  certainly  behove  Him  to  enter  into  glory  in 
order  to  become  the  Author  of  salvation,  it  not  less  cer- 
tainly behoved  Him  to  be  perfected  by  an  experience  as 
like  as  possible  to  our  present  condition.  It  was  reserved 
for  another  age  and  for  other  theological  teachers  to  give 
the  due  prominence  to  this  great  truth. 

1  Quaestio  ix.  (De  scientia  Christi  in  communi)  art.  i.-iv.,  quaestion.  x.-xii. 

»  Quaestio  xv.  (De  defectibus  animae  a  Christo  assumptis)  art.  x.  The  term 
C0»iprehensor  is  derived  from  the  two  texts,  I  Cor.  ix.  24,  sic  currite  ut  compre- 
hendatis,  and  Phil.  iii.  12.  sequor  autem,  si  quo  modo  comprehendam. 

3  Pars  tertia,  quaestio  ix.  art.  ii. :  Semper  causam  oportet  esse  potiorem  causato. 


LECTURE  III. 

THE  LUTHERAN  AND  REFORMED   CHRISTOLOGIES. 

In  the  sixteenth  century,  memorable  on  so  many  other 
accounts  in  the  annals  of  the  Church,  Christology  passed 
into  a  new  phase.  Only  a  few  years  after  the  commence- 
ment of  the  Reformation,  there  arose  a  dispute  on  the  sub- 
ject of  Christ's  person,  which  continued  without  intermis- 
sion for  a  century,  producing  in  its  course  a  separation  of 
the  German  Protestants  into  two  rival  communions,  distin- 
guished by  the  names  Lutheran  and  Reformed,  and  even  giv- 
ing rise  to  bitter  internal  contentions  between  the  members 
of  that  section  of  the  German  Church  which  claimed  Luther 
for  its  founder  and  father.  The  long,  obstinate,  and  in  its 
results  unhappy  controversy,  originated  in  what  to  us  may 
appear  a  very  small  matter — a  difference  of  opinion  between 
Luther  and  Zuingli  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ's  presence  in 
the  sacrament  of  the  Supper.  Zuingli  maintained  that  the 
Redeemer  was  present  spiritually  only,  and  solely  for  those 
who  believe, — the  bread  and  wine  being  simply  emblems  of 
His  b'  -Ken  body  and  shed  blood,  aids  to  faith,  and  stimu- 
lants ,o  grateful  remembrance.  Luther  vehemently  as- 
serted that  the  body  of  the  Saviour  was  present  in  the  Sup- 
per, in,  with,  and  under  the  bread,  and  was  eaten  both  by 
believers  and  by  unbelievers;  by  the  former  to  their  benefit, 
by  the  latter  to  their  hurt.  It  is  easy  to  see  what  questions 
must  arise  out  of  such  a  diversity  of  view.  If  Christ's  body 
be  present  in  the  Supper,  then  it  must  be  ubiquitous;  but  is 
this  attribute  compatible  with  the  nature  of  body,  with  the 
ascension  of  the  risen  Lord  into  heaven,  with  His  session 
at  the  right  han4  of  God,  with  the  promise  of  His  second 


84  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

coming  ?  and  how  did  the  body  of  Christ  come  by  this  mar- 
vellous attribute  ?  was  it  an  acquisition  made  subsequently 
to  the  exaltation,  a  characteristic  feature  in  the  state  of 
heavenly  glory  conferred  on  Christ  as  the  reward  of  His  vol- 
untary humiliation  on  earth  ?  or  did  the  humanity  of  the 
Incarnate  One  possess  the  quality  of  omnipresence  before 
the  ascension  or  the  resurrection,  nay,  even  from  the  first, 
from  the  moment  of  conception,  the  necessary  result,  per- 
haps, of  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  in  one 
person,  involving  the  communication  to  the  inferior  nature 
not  merely  of  ubiquity,  but  of  all  the  august  attributes  of 
the  superior  nature  ?  Supposing  this  last  position  to  be 
taken  up,  then  the  further  question  arises:  How  is  such  a 
humanity,  invested  with  all  that  belongs  to  divine  majesty, 
to  be  reconciled  with  the  facts  of  Christ's  earthly  history, 
with  His  birth  and  growth  in  wisdom;  with  His  localization 
in  different  places  at  different  times;  with  His  weakness, 
temptations,  and  death  ?  Such,  in  fact,  were  the  questions 
discussed  with  more  or  less  clearness  and  fulness  by  the 
combatants  in  all  the  stages  of  the  great  controversy;  with 
this  difference,  that  in  the  first  stage,  that  in  which  Luther 
himself  and  his  opponents  Zuingli,  CEcolampadius,  and 
Carlstadt  were  the  disputants,  the  contention  was  mainly 
confined  to  the  doctrine  of  the  Supper  itself,  and  the  single 
attribute  of  ubiquity;  while  in  the  second  stage,  from  Brentz 
to  the  Formula  of  Concord,  the  debate  widened  into  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  person  of  Christ,  and  the  consequences  of  the 
union  of  the  two  natures  in  that  person,  with  a  view  to  a 
firm  Christological  basis  for  the  doctrine  of  the  Supper;  and 
in  the  third  and  last  stage,  that  of  the  Giessen-Tiibingen 
controversy  (internal  to  the  Lutheran  Church)  the  leading 
subject  was  the  earthly  humiliation  of  Christ,  the  aim  being 
to  adjust  Lutheran  Christological  theories  to  historical 
facts.  The  final  result  of  the  whole  controversy  on  the 
Lutheran  side  was  the  formation  of  a  doctrine  concerning 
the  person  of  Christ  so  artificial,  unnatural,  and  incredible, 
that  any  difficulty  one  may  at  first  experience  in  under- 
standing the  Lutheran  position,  arises  not  from  want  of 
clearness  in  the  writers,  but  from  the  slowness  of  a  mind 
not  familiar  with  the  svstem  to  take  in  the  idea  that  men 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.  85 

could  seriously  believe  and  deliberately  teach  what  their 
words  seem  plainly  enough  to  6ay.  The  Christology  of  the 
Lutheran  Church  to  an  outsider  wears  the  aspect  of  a  vast 
pyramid  resting  in  a  state  of  most  unstable  equilibrium  on 
its  apex,  Christ's  bodily  presence  in  the  Supper;  which 
again  rests  upon  a  water-worn  pebble, — the  word  of  insti- 
tution, "  This  is  my  body,"  easily  susceptible  of  another 
simple  and  edifying  meaning, — the  pyramid  being  upheld 
solely  by  the  strong  arms  of  theological  giants,  and  tum- 
bling into  irretrievable  ruin  so  soon  as  the  race  of  the 
Titans  died  out.1 

In  making  these  general  observations,  I  regard  the 
Lutheran  Christology  as  one  great  whole,  distinguished  by 
certain  broadly  marked  characteristics  from  the  rival  Chris- 
tology of  the  Reformed  Confession.  On  closer  inspection, 
however,  we  find  that  the  former  of  the  two  Christologies 
resolves  itself  into  two  distinct  types,  which  made  their 
appearance  at  a  very  early  period,  and  reproduced  them- 
selves throughout  the  whole  course  of  the  century  during 
which  the  dogma  was  a  subject  of  active  controversy.  The 
two  types  may  be  designated,  from  the  names  of  their  first 
expositors,  as  the  Brentian  and  the  Chemnitzian;  the  former 
being  the  more  extreme,  bold,  and  logical  form  of  the 
theory;  the  latter,  the  more  moderate,  timid,  and  rational. 
Both  started  from  the  principle  that  the  personal  union  of 
the  two  natures  necessarily  involved  the  communication  to 
Mie  human  nature  of  divine  attributes;  but  they  differed  in 
their  use  of  the  common  premiss.  Brentz  and  his  followers 
reasoned  out  the  principle  to  its  last  results,  regardless  of 
consequences.  The  Chemnitzian  school,  on  the  other  hand 
having  some  fear  of  facts  before  their  eyes,  applied  the 
common  assumption  in  a  half-hearted  manner,  the  result 
being  a  system  less  consistent  but  also  less  absurd;  illog- 
ical, but  just  on  that  account  nearer  the  truth.  We  shali 
form  to  ourselves  the  clearest  idea  of  the  Lutheran  Chris- 
tology as  a  whole,  and  put  ourselves  in  a  position  for  un- 
derstanding the  doctrine  of  the  Formula  of  Concord,  b\ 
making  ourselves  acquainted  with  the  distinctive  peculiar- 

1  On  the  connection  between  the  Lutheran  Christology  and  the  Sacramentarian 
controversy,  see  Appendix,  Note  A. 


86  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

ities  of  these  two  schools;  and  therefore  I  propose  here  to 
give  a  brief  account  of  the  views  of  their  founders — John 
Brentz,  the  friend  of  Luther  and  reformer  of  Wurtemberg, 
and  Martin  Chemnitz  of  Brunswick,  a  disciple  of  Melanch- 
thon,  best  known  by  his  work  on  the  Council  of  Trent. 

The  Christological  views  of  Brentz  are  contained  in  a 
series  of  treatises  collected  together  in  the  eighth  volume 
of  his  works,  published  at  Tubingen  in  1590.  His  funda- 
mental position  in  reference  to  the  person  of  Christ  is  this: 
Although  the  natures  or  substances  are  altogether  diverse, 
and  have  each  their  own  peculiar  idioms  or  properties, 
nevertheless  these  same  substances  are  conjoined  in  such  a 
union  that  they  become  one  inseparable  hypostasis,  sup- 
positum  or  person,  and  their  respective  properties  are 
mutually  communicated  so  familiarly,  that  whatever  is  a 
property  of  either  nature  is  appropriated  by  the  other  to 
itself.1  The  two  natures,  that  is  to  say,  are  not  merely 
united  in  one  person,  the  Ego  tying  together  two  alto- 
gether dissimilar  substances  still  continuing  dissimilar; 
they  are  united  into  one  person,  their  union  constituting 
the  person,  and  involving  ipso  facto  a.  communication  of 
their  respective  properties.  The  Reformed  idea,  as  con- 
sisting in  a  mere  sustentation  of  the  humanity  by  the 
Logos,  Brentz  repudiated  as  not  a  personal  union  at  all, 
but  merely  a  common  union  such  as  God  may  form  with 
any  man.  The  difference  between  Christ  and  Peter,  he 
held,  arose  not  from  the  sustentation  or  inhabitation  of 
the  man  Jesus  by  the  Son  of  God,  but  from  the  communi- 
cation to  Him  of  the  divine  properties  of  the  latter.  The 
Son  of  God,  though  He  fills  Peter  with  His  essence,  as  He 
fills  the  man  Christ,  does  not  communicate  to  Peter  all 
His  properties,  but  only  some.  He  vivifies  Peter,  keeps 
him  in  life,  gives  him  the  power  of  casting  out  devils,  yea, 
of  raising  the  dead;  but  He  does  not  make  him  omnipotent, 
omniscient,  omnipresent.  The  Son  of  man,  assumed  from 
the  Virgin,  on  the  contrary,  He  adorns  not  with  some  only, 
but  with  all  His  gifts,  and  communicates  to  Him  all  His 
properties.  The  qualification  "  as  far  as  He  is  capable  " 
cannot  be  allowed;  Christ  was  made  capable  of  all  divine 

1  De  Personali  unione  duarum  naturarutn  in  Chris  to.    Opera,  vol.  viii.  p.  84 1 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.  87 

properties,  without  any  exception;  if  He  had  not  such 
capacity,  there  would  be  no  difference  between  Him  and 
other  men,  nor  could  the  Word  become  incarnate.1 

At  first  Brentz  showed  a  disposition,  following  the  ex- 
ample of  Luther,  to  apply  his  fundamental  thesis  impar- 
tially to  both  sides  of  the  composite  person,  and  to  make 
the  divine  nature  appropriate  human  properties,  as  well  as 
the  human  nature  divine  properties.2  And  there  was  no 
reason  d  priori  why  this  should  not  be  done,  for  it  is  surely 
just  as  possible  for  the  Infinite  to  become  partaker  of  the 
finite  and  its  properties,  as  for  the  finite  to  become  partaker 
of  the  Infinite.  But  Brentz  apparently  soon  found  out  that 
to  apply  his  principle  both  ways  would  be  either  to  reduce 
the  communication  of  properties,  on  which  so  much  stress 
was  laid,  to  the  alloiosis  of  Zuingli,  which  drove  Luther 
mad  with  rage,  or,  in  case  the  communication  was  held  to 
be  real,  to  make  either  nature  swallow  up  the  other  in  turn; 
therefore  in  his  later  works  he  quietly  ignored  one  side  and 
worked  out  his  theory  solely  on  the  other  side,  that,  viz., 
of  the  appropriation  by  the  human  nature  of  the  properties 
characteristic  of  the  divine  nature. 

In  the  working  out  of  his  theory  Brentz  exhibits  at  once 
great  boldness  and  no  small  amount  of  dialectical  skill; 
shrinking  from  no  legitimate  inference,  and  at  the  same 
time  doing  his  utmost  to  answer  or  obviate  objections, 
though  sometimes  with  very  indifferent  success.  He  is 
careful  to  explain  that  in  the  person  of  Christ  neither 
nature  is  changed  into  the  other,  but  both  remain  inviolate 


1  De  Majestate  Domini  Nostri  Jesn  Christi  ad  Dextra.7n  Dei  Patris,  et  De 
Vera  Praesentia  corporis  et  sanguinis  ejus  in  Coena,  pp.  898-9.  This  work  was 
a  reply  to  Peter  Martyr  and  Henry  Bullinger,  Cingliani  dogmatis  de  Coena  Do- 
minica propugnatorious,  and  it  is  sadly  disfigured  by  the  asperities  too  common  in 
theological  controversy. 

2  De  Personali  unione,  p.  839:  Nos  autem  intelligimus  in  hac  materia  per  idio- 
mata,  non  tantum  vocabularum,  sed  etiam  rerum  proprietates:  ut  cum  per  com- 
municationem  idiomatum  de  Christo  dicimus,  Deum  esse  passum  et  mortuum,  non 
sit  sententia,  quod  Deus  verbum  dicatur  tantum  sermone  vocabuli  pati  et  mori, 
res  autem  ipsa  nihil  prorsus  ad  Deum  pertineat,  sed  quod  Deus,  etsi  natura  sua  nee 
patitur,  nee  moritur,  tamen  passionem  et  mortem  Christi  ita  sibi  communem  faciat, 
ut  propter  hyposteticam  unionem  passioni,  et  morti  personaliter  adsit,  et  non  aliter, 
Ut  sic  dicam,  afheiatur  quam  si  ipse  pateretur  et  moreretnr. 


88  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

and  in  possession  of  their  essential  properties.1  There  is 
no  cxaequation  of  the  humanity  to  the  divinity.  The  for- 
mer is  indeed  declared  to  be  omnipotent,  omnipresent, 
etc..  but  it  is  not  declared  to  be  omnipotence  itself.  Of 
God  alone  is  this  affirmed;  the  humanity  possesses  only  a 
communicated  divinity,  and  is  made  equal  to  God  not  in 
being  (ov6ia),  but  in  authority  (t£ovdia).*  But  if  each  na- 
ture retains  its  essential  properties,  the  question  at  once 
arises,  in  reference  to  the  humanity,  what  are  its  essential 
properties  ?  Is  to  be  in  a  particular  place,  e.g.,  one  of  them  ? 
and  if  so,  how  is  the  retention  of  that  property  to  be  re- 
conciled with  omnipresence  ?  At  first  Brentz  seems  to 
have  been  doubtful  what  position  to  take  up  on  this  point; 
for,  in  a  passage  near  the  commencement  of  his  earliest 
treatise,  that  on  the  personal  union,  he  remarks:  "If  you 
say  that  to  be  in  place  is  so  proper  to  body  that  it  cannot 
be  separated  from  it,  let  us  suppose  meantime  that  this  is 
in  its  own  way  true,  yet  it  cannot  be  denied  that  what  is 
impossible  to  nature  is  not  only  possible  but  easy  to  divine 
power."3  It  was  not  absolutely  necessary  that  he  should 
call  in  question  the  position  of  his  opponents  in  reference 
to  the  nature  of  body,  for  it  was  open  to  him  to  follow  the 
course  adopted  by  Luther,  and  to  maintain  the  possibility 
of  body  existing  in  two  different  ways  at  the  same  time; 
locally,  here  or  there  in  space;  and  illocally,  everywhere. 
This  course,  in  point  of  fact,  he  did  follow,  as  we  shall  see; 

1  De  Personali  unione,  p.  837. 

2  De  Incarnatione  Christi,  p.  1001:  Non  igitur  exaequamus  humanitatem 
Christi  divinitati  ovti/a  seel  tantum  lc,ov(5ia. 

3  De  Personali  unione,  p.  837.  It  must  be  stated,  however,  that  in  the  imme- 
diately preceding  sentence  Brentz  says:  "In  loco  esse  non  sit  corporis  substantia, 
•sed    tantum  proprietas  substantiae  accidentaria."     In  the  paragraph   preceding 

that  in  which  these  words  occur,  he  quotes  the  sentence  of  Augustine:  "  Tolle 
spatia  locorum  corporibus,  nusquam  erunt,  et  quia  nusquam  erunt,  non  erunt, " 
and  remarks  that  he  is  aware  that  the  things  which  are  said  concerning  the  ma- 
jesty of  Christ  seem  very  absurd  to  human  reason,  and  plainly  impossible;  but  the 
hypostatic  union  of  most  diverse  natures  is  taught  in  Scripture,  and  therefore, 
though  the  absurdity  of  absurdities,  must  be  believed;  and  this  greatest  absurdity 
being  once  accepted,  many  other  things  which  appear  absurd  to  human  intellect 
follow  of  course.  This  defiant  attitude  towards  reason  and  philosophy  pervades 
Brentz'  writings.  In  one  place,  however,  he  claims  philosophy  as  on  his  side, 
on  the  question  whether  to  be  in  loco  be  es-ential  to  body.  See  De  Div.  Maj es- 
tate, p.  934. 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.  89 

but  he  did  not  rely  solely  on  that  line  of  argument,  but, 
moreover,  boldly  took  up  the  position  from  which,  as  it 
appears,  he  at  first  shrunk,  that  to  be  in  loco  is  after  all 
not  an  essential  attribute,  but  only  an  accident  of  body. 
This  view  underlies  all  his  representations  of  the  invisible 
world.  Brentz  ridicules  the  Zuinglian  conception  of  heaven 
as  a  certain  place  not  on  this  earth,  but  distant  and  far 
removed  from  it,  distinct  also  from  the  visible  lower 
heavens,  not  everywhere,  but  situated  above  the  clouds, 
and  above  this  corruptible  world,  yea,  above  all  heavens, 
in  excelsis,  the  house  of  the  Father,  the  abode  and  seat  of 
Christ  and  His  elect,  an  abode  happy,  divine,  eternal,  im- 
mense, splendid,  spiritual,  corporeal,  having  spaces,  and 
these  most  spacious,  in  which  they  walk,  sit,  stand,  and, 
"  for  aught  I  know,  recline,  for  this  is  not  expressly  stated."  l 
Heaven  is,  in  his  view,  simply  a  state  separated  from  hell, 
not  by  space,  but  by  disposition  and  condition;  heaven 
being  where  God  is  known  in  the  majesty  of  His  grace, 
and  hell  where  He  is  known  in  the  majesty  of  His  severity.* 
Going  to  heaven  means  going  to  the  Father,  who  is  the 
Locus  of  His  people,  their  all  in  all,  the  all-including  lo- 
cality; their  heaven,  earth,  place,  food,  drink,  as  well  as 
their  justice,  wisdom,  virtue,  gladness,  joy,  and  beatitude.3 
The  mansions  spoken  of  by  Christ  to  His  disciples4  are 
purely  spiritual.5  It  is  not,  indeed,  absolutely  to  be  denied 
that  there  is  a  certain  place  of  beatitude  in  which  Christ 
dwells  with  His  saints,  but  the  question  is  whether  the  place 
be  such  a  place  as  Zuinglians  contend  for, — superficies  cor- 
poris continentis — Locus  circumscriptus, — in  other  words 
(ours,  not  Brentz'),  whether  it  be,  properly  speaking,  a 
place  at  all.6     For,  in  truth,  both  space  and  time,  as  un- 

'  De  Divina  Maj estate  Christi,  p.  947:  .  .  .  Locus  certus  ...  in  quibus  lo- 
caliter  itur,  sedetur,  statur,  et  ambulatur;  atque  haud  scio,  num  etiam  ibi  jaceatur 
hoc  enim  non  invenio  additum.         2  De  Ascensu  Christi  in  Coelum,  pp.  1040-47. 

s  Ibid.  p.  1067:  Cum  igitur  Deus  erit  in  nobis  Omnia,  eerie  erit  nostrum  coelum, 
nostra  terra,  noster  locus,  etc.      Vid.  also  De  Div.  Maj.  p.  959. 

4  John  xiv.  2;  on  which  Bullinger  wrote  a  treatise,  the  aim  of  which  was  to 
show  that  heaven  was  a  definite  locality,  the  abode  of  Christ  and  His  people. 

5  De  Ascensu  Christi  in  Coelum,  p.  1046. 

*  De  Sessione  Christi  ad  dextra??i  Dei,  p.  1076.  Brentz  shows  manifest  siens 
of  distress  here:    De  hoc  controvertitur;    num  beatitudinis  locus  sit  talis,  Talis 


90  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

derstood  in  this  world,  are  to  be  destroyed  in  heaven,  burnt 
up  in  the  great  conflagration  which  shall  usher  in  the  new 
heavens  and  the  new  earth,  wherein  shall  be  not  space  and 
time,  but  righteousness.1  The  right  hand  of  God  means 
the  omnipotence  and  majesty  of  God.  The  session  of 
Christ  at  the  right  hand  of  God  signifies  His  being  crowned 
with  glory  and  honour,  having  all  things  subject  to  Him, 
possessing  all  power  in  heaven  and  on  earth.2  It  has  no 
relation  to  place;  on  the  contrary,  space  is  one  of  the  things 
put  under  Christ's  feet;  for  place  has  a  name  and  body  has 
a  name,  and  it  is  written  that  He  is  to  be  placed  above 
everything  that  has  a  name  in  this  world.3  Christ's  glorified 
body  has  no  form,  if  by  form  be  meant  external  figure  or 
appearance;  it  has  only  the  power  of  assuming  such  a  form 
at  will  by  way  of  economy,  as  when  Christ  appeared  to 
Stephen  and  Paul,  and  as  He  shall  appear  at  His  second 
coming.  The  body  of  the  exalted  Lord  is  not  in  heaven 
with  wound-prints  in  the  hands  [cicatricibtis  in  manibus), 
it  retains  only  the  essence  of  body  (whatever  that  maybe); 
its  form  is  incomprehensible,  inconceivable,  intolerable  to 
mortal  men/  And  the  same  thing  holds  true  of  the  bodies 
of  the  saints.  They  shall  have  no  more  to  do  with  space 
and  time  than  the  angels  to  whom,  the  Lord  taught,  the 
glorified  shall  be  equal.  They  shall  still  be  true  bodies  as 
to  essence;  but  for  the  rest  they  shall  be  altogether  spirit- 
ual, without  visible  figure.  Such  an  account  of  the  spiritual 
^ody  excites  curiosity  to  know  what  the  essence  of  body 
as  distinct  from  spirit  may  be;  and  one  naturally  inquires 
what  becomes  of  the  resurrection  on  these  terms.  Our 
author  assures  us  that  it  still  remains, — not  without  indig- 
nation at  those  who  ventured  to  insinuate  that  his  theory 
left  no  place  for  it;  but  his  assurance  does  not  dispel  our 
doubts.5  Once  more,  in  view  of  this  sublimating  process, 
intended  to  make  room  for  the  doctrine  of  ubiquity,  one 
not   unnaturally   inquires,    Are   all    spiritual    bodies    then 

inquam,  qualem,  etc.     The  talis  in  large  capitals  betrays  the  irritation  of  a  dispu- 
tant at  his  wits'  end. 

1  De  Ascensu  Chrisli  in  Caelum,  p.  1048. 

2  De  Divina  Maj estate  y  p.  920,  and  in  many  other  places. 

3  Ibid.  pp.  913,  914.  •»  Ibid.  pp.  930,   1047,  1081,  109I. 
6  De  Sessione,  r>.  1092. 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.  91 

ubiquitous,  those  of  the  saints  as  well  as  that  of  Christ  ? 
Brentz  himself  asks  the  question;  but  his  reply  is  far  from 
satisfactory:  "  Let  us,"  he  says,  "  not  be  solicitous  at  pres- 
ent, and  in  this  life,  concerning  the  state  of  the  saints  in 
the  world  to  come;  but  give  Christ  His  own  peculiar  ma- 
jesty, more  excellent  than  all  that  can  be  named,  and  join 
His  saints  to  Him."1 

The  foregoing  views  of  the  invisible  world,  and  of  the  con- 
ditions of  existence  there,  might  be  available,  as  they  were 
actually  used  by  Brentz,  to  meet  objections  to  the  doctrine 
of  ubiquity  drawn  from  the  hypothesis  of  a  localized  heaven 
to  which  the  glorified  body  of  Christ  is  confined;2  but  they 
are  manifestly  inadequate  to  the  task  of  reconciling  the 
attribute  of  ubiquity,  supposed  to  be  communicated  to 
Christ's  humanity  by  the  personal  union,  with  the  conditions 
of  existence  on  earth.  Whatever  be  the  nature  of  our  Lord's 
glorified  body,  it  is  certain  at  all  events  that  His  earthly 
body  had  a  local  existence.  How  then  did  Brentz  seek  to 
secure,  as  his  theory  required,  even  for  the  earthly  body  the 
attribute  of  ubiquity  ?     As  Luther  had  done  before  him,3 

1  De  Divina  Majestate  Christi,  p.  959. 

2  Thomasius  [Person  und  IVerk,  ii.  358)  animadverts  on  a  statement  made  by 
Heppe  ( Geschichte  des  Deutschen  Protestantistnus),  that  Brentz  did  not  derive  the 
doctrine  of  ubiquity  from  the  union  of  the  natures,  but  from  the  full  entrance  of 
'.he  exalted  man  Christ  into  the  glory  of  God,  and  from  the  session  of  the  Son  of 
God  at  the  right  hand  of  the  Father,  as  one  which  the  slightest  acquaintance  with 
Brentz'  writings  shows  to  be  the  direct  contrary  of  the  actual  fact.  Heppe  is  cer- 
tainly grossly  in  error;  but  his  error  lies  not  in  what  he  affirms,  but  in  what  he 
denies.  The  truth  is,  Brentz  based  his  doctrines  of  ubiquity  both  on  the  personal 
union,  and  on  the  nature  of  Christ's  glorified  body,  and  of  spiritual  bodies  in  general. 

5  Luther,  after  the  Scholastics,  distinguished  three  ways  in  which  a  thing  could 
be  in  place:  localiter  or  circumscriptive,  definitive,  and  repletive.  Localiter,  as 
when  place  and  bodies  correspond;  as  wine  in  a  vessel  takes  no  more  space,  and 
the  vessel  gives  no  more  space,  than  the  quantity  of  wine  requires.  Definitive, 
when  a  thing  is  in  a  particular  place,  but  cannot  be  measured  by  the  space  of 
the  place,  taking  more  or  less  room  at  will,  as  in  the  case  of  angels,  who  can  be 
either  in  a  house  or  a  nutshell.  Repletive,  when  a  thing  is  at  the  same  time 
wholly  in  all  places,  filling  all  places,  and  yet  is  measured  and  contained  by  no 
place.  This  third  way  belongs  to  God  alone.  All  three  ways  of  being  were,  ac- 
cording to  Luther,  possible  for  Christ's  body.  The  first  it  had  on  earth  when  it 
took  and  gave  space  according  to  its  dimensions;  the  second  when  it  rose  out  of 
the  grave  through  the  stone  at  the  mouth  of  the  sepulchre  and  passed  through 
closed  doors;  the  third  it  had  and  has  in  virtue  of  personal  union  with  the  omni- 
present God.  Bekenntniss  vom  Abendmahl  Christi,  Luther's  Sammtliche  Werke, 
30M  Band,  Erlangen  ed.  pp.  207-217. 


92  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

viz.,  by  conceiving  of  the  ubiquity  as  ILLOCAL,  and  main- 
taining the  co-existence  simultaneously  in  Christ  of  two 
ways  of  being — a  local  existence  here  or  there  in  space,  and 
an  illocal,  omnipresent  being  in  the  Logos  to  which  the 
humanity  was  united.  He  admitted  frankly  that  local 
ubiquity  could  not  be  predicated  of  Christ's  humanity  either 
on  earth  or  in  heaven.  "  I  am  not  ignorant,"  he  says, 
"  that  certain  of  the  ancients  disapproved  of  this  saying: 
the  humanity  of  Christ  is  everywhere.  I  myself  would  dis- 
approve of  it  if  by  this  word  (ubique)  locality  were  signi- 
fied. Let  us  therefore  docendi  gratia  posit  a  threefold 
ubiquity — viz.  a  local,  a  repletive,  and  a  personal.  Now 
there  is  nothing  whatever,  either  spiritual  or  corporeal, 
which  is  everywhere  by  a  local  ubiquity;  but  God  alone  by 
His  nature  is  everywhere  by  a  repletive  ubiquity.  And 
after  the  Son  of  God  united  to  Himself  humanity,  it  neces- 
sarily follows  that  that  humanity,  assumed  into  the  unity 
of  one  person  by  the  Son  of  God,  is  everywhere  by  a  person- 
al ubiquity."1  This  distinction  between  a  local  and  a 
personal  ubiquity — or,  as  it  was  afterwards  epigrammati- 
cally  expressed,  between  a  ubiquity  in  loco  and  a  ubiquity 
in  Logo" — being  allowed,  the  combination  of  an  omnipres- 
ent manner  of  existence  with  the  limitations  of  earthly  life 
becomes  easy.  It  can  be  said  at  once,  as  Brentz  does  say, 
that  Christ  was  confined  within  the  Virgin's  womb,  and 
filled  the  whole  world;3  that  when  He  was  in  Bethany 
about  to  ride  on  an  ass  into  Jerusalem,  He  was  at  the  same 
moment  in  the  Holy  City  and  the  Praetorium;4  that  at  the 
institution  of  the  Holy  Supper  He  sat  circumscriptively  in 
one  certain  place  at  the  table,  and  at  the  same  time  gave 
to  His  disciples  His  own  true  body  in  the  bread  to  be  eat- 
en, and  His  own  true  blood  in  the  wine  to  be  drunk.5 

It  will  readily  be  seen  that  a  theory  which,  to  maintain 
its  consistency,  did  not  shrink  from  such  positions  as  these, 
was  not  likely  to  find  any  insuperable  difficulty  in  ascribing 

1  De  Personali  unione,  p.  842. 

2  See  Thomasius,  ii.  418,  on  Aegidius  Hunnius. 

3  De  Divina  Maj estate  Christi,  p.  928. 
*  Eodem  loco. 

5  De  Sessione  Christi  ad  dext.  Dei,  p.  1073;  see  also  De  Incarnatione,  1021. 


LutJieran  and  Reformed  Christologies.  93 

to  the  humanity  of  Christ  even  on  earth  not  only  ubiquity, 
the  principal  matter  in  dispute,  but  all  other  divine  attributes. 
This  accordingly  Brentz  does.  He  invests  the  humanity 
of  Christ  with  all  divine  qualities,  or,  to  use  his  favourite 
phrase,  comprehensive  of  everything,  with  DIVINE  MAJESTY, 
from  the  moment  of  Incarnation.  He  does  not  hesitate  to 
say  that  the  ascension  and  the  session  at  the  right  hand  of 
God  took  place  not  after  the  resurrection,  but  from  the 
very  beginning,  from  the  moment  when  the  hypostatical 
union  of  the  two  natures  took  place.1  Incarnation  and 
exaltation  are  in  his  view  identical.2  He  does  not  indeed 
deny  the  historical  reality  of  the  ascension  from  the  Mount 
of  Olives;  he  distinguishes  it  as  the  visible  ascent,  from  the 
invisible  one  which  took  place  at  the  moment  of  Incarna- 
tion, and  explains  it  to  have  been  a  spectacle  economically 
prepared  by  Christ,  partly  to  fulfil  Scripture,  partly  to  make 
the  disciples  understand  that  they  were  to  be  favoured  no 
longer  with  such  apparitions  as  they  had  enjoyed  during 
the  forty  days  following  the  resurrection;  the  time  of  such 
general  and  familiar  appearances  being  now  at  an  end.* 
It  thus  appears  that,  in  the  system  of  Brentz,  the  two 
states  of  exaltation  and  humiliation  are  not  successive,  as 
we  have  been  accustomed  to  regard  them,  but  rather  si- 
multaneous and  co-existent.  The  only  difference  between 
the  earthly  and  the  heavenly  states  is,  that  in  the  former 
Christ  was  at  once  humbled  and  exalted  in  the  same  sense, 
while  in  the  latter  He  enjoys  His  exaltation  unalloyed  by 

1  De  Personali  ttnione,  p.  847:  Quid  autem  opus  est,  de  tempore  tantum  resur- 
rectionis  et  ascensionis  Christi  dicere,  cum  jam  inde  ab  initio,  in  momento  incar- 
nationis  suae  ascendent  invisibiliter  in  coelum,  et  ad  dextram  Dei  patris  sui  sederit  ? 

2  De  Div.  Maj.  p.  923:  Deinde  non  est  se-ntiendum,  quod  humanitas  Christi 
turn  primum  exaltata  est  in  summam  sublimitatem,  et  acceperit  omnem  potestatem 
in  coelo  et  in  terra,  cum  ascendit  visibiliter  ex  monte  Oliveti  in  coelum,  sed  cum 
verbum  caro  factum  est,  et  cum  in  utero  virginis  Deus  assumpsit  hominem  in 
eandem  personam. 

3  De  Ascensu  Christi  in  Coelum,  p.  1038;  Voluit  Christus  hoc  spectaculo  finem 
facere  generalium  suarum  apparitionum,  quibus  hactenus  per  quadraginta  dies 
veritatem  resurrectionis  suae  testifkatus  est.  Etsi  enim  postea  visus  estetiam  Paulo: 
tamen  non  apparuit  amplius  generaliter  eo  modo,  quo  per  quadraginta  dies  ap- 
paruit,  ut  una.  cum  discipulis  familiariter  colloqueretur,  ambularet,  et  convivaretur. 
Hoc  igitur  externum  spectaculum,  ascensus  Christi  ex  monte  Oliveti,  est  clausula 
eorum  apparitionum,  quibus  se  hactenus  a  resurrectione  discipulis  gratifecerat. 


94  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

any  accompanying  humiliation.  The  earthly  Christ  com- 
bined in  Himself,  so  to  speak,  two  humanities,  a  humbled 
one,  and  an  exalted  one;  this  being  omnipresent,  omnis- 
cient, omnipotent,  etc.,  that  localized,  visible,  tangible, 
limited  in  knowledge  and  power.  One  is  naturally  sceptical 
of  the  possibility  of  such  a  combination,  and  curious  to 
know  by  what  means  Brentz  secures  their  mutual  compati- 
bility. But  on  careful  examination,  one  finds  that  our  au- 
thor does  not  greatly  trouble  himself  about  the  solution  of 
this  difficult  problem,  but  places  majesty  and  exinanition 
side  by  side,  and  leaves  them  to  adjust  themselves  to  one 
another  as  best  they  can.  He  divides  the  things  which 
can  happen  to  the  person  of  Christ  into  three  grades.  The 
first  grade  is  that  of  divine  majesty,  in  which  the  man 
Christ  was  from  the  beginning;  the  second  grade  is  that  of 
exinanition  or  humiliation,  in  which  He  existed  in  the  days 
of  His  flesh  till  the  resurrection;  the  third  grade  is  that  of 
economy  or  dispensation,  terms  applicable  to  Christ's  whole 
life  on  earth,  but  which  may  be  conveniently  restricted  to 
those  acts  or  events  in  which  Christ  after  the  resurrection, 
and  even  after  His  ascension  into  heaven,  appeared  in  one 
particular  place,  and  shall  appear  in  the  last  day.1  This 
third  grade  Brentz  explains  after  the  following  fashion.  It 
is  economy  when  Christ  does  anything,  or  appears  not  ac- 
cording to  His  majesty,  but  in  accommodation  to  our  power 
of  comprehension,  or  for  our  benefit.  When  He  had  risen 
from  the  dead,  and  was  being  sought  by  the  women  in  the 
sepulchre,  the  angel  said:  "  He  is  risen,  He  is  not  here."  It 
was  truly  said,  but  not  juxta  majestatem,  but  juxta  econo- 
miam.  He  was  not  in  the  sepulchre  dead,  as  the  women 
sought  to  find  Him.  He  was  not  in  the  sepulchre  accord- 
ing to  the  external  aspect.  But  He  was  nevertheless  not 
in  the  sepulchre  only,  but  even  in  heaven  and  earth,  ac- 
cording to  the  majesty  of  His  divinity — the  divinity  com- 
municated to  His  humanity.5  The  same  epithet  economical 
is  applied  to  the  appearances  of  the  risen  Christ,  to  His 
eating,  to  the  prints  of  the  nails  which  He  showed  to  Thomas. 
These  things  did  not  form  a  part  of  Christ's  humiliation, 
for  that  was  past;  but  neither  did  they  belong  to  His 
1  De  Divina  Maj estate  Ckristi,  p.  928.  2  Ibid.  p.  929. 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  CJiristologies.  95 

exaltation,  for  the  glorified  body  of  the  Saviour  is  neither 
visible,  nor  disfigured  by  wounds,  nor  liable  to  hunger;  they 
were  simply  an  accommodation  or  condescension  to  the 
weakness  of  the  disciples. 

Passing  over  this  third  grade,  and  returning  to  the  ques- 
tion concerning  the  compatibility  of  the  other  two,  we  find, 
as  already  stated,  that  Brentz  does  little  more  than  assert 
their  actual  co-existence.  Christ  the  man,  being  born,  was 
bound  in  swaddling-clothes  and  laid  in  a  manger;  and  if 
you  regard  His  exinanition,  He  was  not  then  in  any  other 
place;  but  if  you  consider  His  majesty,  He  could  not  be 
confined  to  the  manger,  but  filled  the  whole  universe.  He 
lay  in  the  sepulchre  dead,  exinanitione  ;  He  governed  heaven 
and  earth  alive,  majestate.  With  reference  to  the  attribute 
of  omniscience,  indeed,  the  author  expresses  himself  with 
less  decision.  Alluding  to  certain  passages  in  Luther's 
writings,  quoted  by  opponents,  in  which  Christ  is  spoken 
of  as  like  other  men,  not  thinking  of  all  things  at  once,  or 
seeing,  hearing,  and  feeling  all  things  at  the  same  time, 
he  explains  that  these  statements  are  to  be  understood 
with  reference  to  the  exinanition;  so  that  while,  if  you  look 
at  the  majesty  of  the  man  Christ,  He  was  from  the  begin- 
ning of  the  Incarnation  in  forma  Dei,  and  could  think,  hear, 
see,  and  feel  all  things  at  one  time,  nevertheless  He  hum- 
bled Himself,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men,  so  that 
He  now  eat,  now  drank,  now  preached,  now  slept,  and  did 
not  always  think  or  see  all  things.1  This  could,  this  potuit, 
is  not  thoroughgoing;  it  is  the  only  hesitating  word  to  be 
found  in  Brentz.  To  be  consistent,  he  ought  rather  to  have 
affirmed  that  Christ  saw,  and  yet  did  not  seem  to  see,  all 
things  at  once.  The  logic  of  his  theory  required  him  to 
affirm  a  dissembled  omniscience  and  omnipotence,  as  well 
as  an  invisible  omnipresence.  And  when  he  is  speaking  in 
general  terms  of  the  majesty,  he  shows  that  he  is  fully 
aware  of  what  his  system  demands.  He  expressly  says 
that  Christ  dissembled  His  majesty  in  the  time  of  exin- 
anition;2 meaning  that  it  was  there  in  all  its  fulness,  but 

1  De  Incamatione,  p.  iooi. 

2  Ibid.  p.  1027:  Personalis  unio  duarum  naturarum  in  Christo  non  ita  est  intel* 
ligenda,  quod  divinitas  mutetur  in  humanitatem,  aut  quod  humanitas  fuerit  ab 


96  The  Humiliation  of  Christ 

only  concealed  from  view  by  the  servile  form  assumed  ir. 
humility,  and  because  the  work  of  salvation  made  such 
assumption  necessary;  not  always  or  perfectly  concealed, 
however;  for  although  in  the  time  of  His  humility  He  did 
not  exhibit  the  supreme  majesty  which  He  had,  neverthe- 
less He  did  not  altogether  so  dissemble  it  (our  author  as- 
sures us)  that  it  did  not  sometimes  appear,  as  in  the  forty 
days'  fast,  the  walking  on  the  waters,  the  occasional  as- 
sumption of  invisibility,  and  the  transfiguration.1 

In  passing  from  John  Brentz  to  Martin  Chemnitz  we 
enter  into  a  very  different  intellectual  and  moral  climate, 
the  author  of  the  work  on  the  two  natures  of  Christ  (De 
duabus  naturis  in  Christo)  being  a  scholar  thoroughly 
acquainted  with  the  literature  of  his  subject,  and  able  to 
enrich  his  pages  with  a  multitude  of  apt  quotations,  patris- 
tic and  scholastic,  and  at  the  same  time  a  man  of  a  calm, 
dignified,  peace-loving  temper.  Of  this  excellent  book,  in 
which  it  is  easy  to  recognise  the  sobering  and  modifying 
influence  of  extensive  knowledge,  and  of  cordial  sympathy 
with  men  representing  diverse  theological  tendencies,  well 
becoming  one  who  had  been  a  disciple  both  of  Luther  and 
of  Melanchthon,2  it  would  be  a  pleasant  task  to  give  a  full 
analysis,  but  I  must  content  myself  here  with  a  brief 
indication  of  the  points  in  which  the  Christological  system 
contained  therein  differs  from  that  of  the  Wiirtemberg 
reformer.* 

aeterno,  aut  quod  humanitas  transfuderit  suas  imbecillitates  in  divinitatem,  sed 
quod  salva  utriusque  substantia  divinitas  ornavit  in  incarnatione  humanitatem  omni 
sua  majestate,  quam  tamen  majestatem  humanitas,  tempore  exinanitionis,  sua 
modo  dissimulavit,  donee  earn  resurrectione,  et  missione  Spiritus  Sancti,  Ecclesiae, 
quantum  quidem  in  hoc  seculo  ad  salutem  cognitu  necessarium  est,  patefecit.  This 
sentence  is  a  brief  statement  of  Brentz'  whole  theory  at  the  close  of  his  treatise  on 
the  Incarnation.  1  De  Personali  unione,  p.  848. 

-  Melanchthon,  as  is  well  known,  took  the  Reformed  view  of  the  person  of 
Christ  and  of  Christ's  presence  in  the  Supper. 

3  For  a  more  detailed  account  of  both  the  Brentian  and  the  Chemnitzian  Chris- 
tology,  readers  are  referred  to  Dorner,  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  ii.,  and  still 
better  to  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  IVerk,  vol.  ii.  pp.  342-404.  Those  who 
desire  to  peruse  a  clear  exposition  of  the  Lutheran  Christology  in  all  the  stages  of 
its  history,  will  find  what  they  want  in  the  valuable  work  of  the  last-named  author, 
who  devotes  upwards  of  two  hundred  pages  to  the  subject  (vol.  ii.  307-526),  and 
traces  the  course  of  the  controversy  from  Luther  to  the  period  of  the  Saxon  Decisio 
at  the  close  of  the  Tubingen -Geissen  dispute,  in  a  very  lucid  and  interesting  manner. 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.  97 

In  common  with  Brentz  and  all  advocates  of  the  Lutheran 
Christology,  Chemnitz  held  that  the  personal  union  of  the 
two  natures  involved  a  real  communication  of  the  proper- 
ties of  the  divine  nature  to  the  human,  limited  only  by  the 
principle  that  each  nature  must  preserve  its  essential  prop- 
erties, earnestly  repudiating  the  Reformed  conception  of 
the  union  as  a  sustentation  of  the  human  by  the  divine,  or 
as  a  mere  gluing  together  of  two  separate  and  entirely 
heterogeneous  natures.1  He  differed  from  Brentz  in  the  ap- 
plication of  the  limiting  principle,  in  the  view  he  took  of 
the  mode  and  the  effect  of  the  communication,  and  in  the 
adjustment  of  the  same  to  the  state  of  exinanition.  As  to 
the  first  point,  Chemnitz  held  visibility,  tangibility,  exist- 
ence in  loco,  to  be  essential  properties  of  matter;  and  by 
the  accidential  properties  of  Christ's  humanity  he  under- 
stood the  infirmities  to  which  human  nature  is  liable  on 
accountof  sin,  and  which  Christ  in  the  state  of  exinanition 
voluntarily  assumed  that  He  might  suffer  for  us.2  In  ac- 
cordance with  this  view,  he  consistently  held  that  even 
the  post-resurrection,  glorified  body  of  Christ  possessed, 
and  will  for  ever  possess,  figure,  and  a  localized  manner  of 
being.  Jesus  rose  from  the  dead  with  that  very  substance 
of  human  nature  which  He  received  from  the  Virgin  Mary, 
having  hands,  feet,  sides,  flesh,  bones;  in  that  body  He 
ascended  to  heaven,  and  He  will  return  to  judgment  as  He 
was  seen  to  ascend,  so  that  men  shall  see  that  very  body 
which  they  pierced  with  nails  in  the  passion.3  The  ascen- 
sion was  not  a  mere  economic  spectacle,  but  the  actual 
progress  through  space  of  a  real  body  rising  gradually  from 
earth  up  to  a  locally  defined  heaven.4  And  as  Christ  while 
on  earth  was  in  loco  as  to  His  body,  just  like  other  men; 
so  now,  according  to  natural  law,  He  occupies  with  His 
glorified  body  a  certain  space,  just  as  saints  after  the  res- 
urrection will  do,  whose  bodies,  though  spiritual,  will  still 
be   material,    not   angelic   in  nature.5     Even   the    glorified 

*  De  duab.  nat.  caput  v.  pp.  24,  25. 

2  Ibid.  p.  4:  Naturale  ratione  sit  (hum.  nat.)  visibilis,  palpabilis,  physica  loca. 
tione  uno  loco  circumscripta.  Accidentalia  idiomata  vocantur  infirmitates  proptei 
peccatum  humanae  naturae  impositae. 

3  Ibid.  p.  17.  *  Ibid.  p.  185.  s  md.  p.  f86. 


9S  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

body  of  the  Redeemer  is  by  itself  and  of  itself  bounded  by 
the  property  of  its  nature,  and  after  the  manner  of  glorified 
bodies  is  somewhere;  and  the  where  is  not  on  earth.  Ordi- 
narily, Christ  is  now  no  longer  present  in  His  Church, 
either  after  the  mode  of  His  earthly  body  or  after  the  mode 
of  His  glorified  bod)-.1 

On  the  subject  of  the  communicatio  idiomatunt,  Chemnitz, 
while  asserting  the  Lutheran  position  against  the  Reformed, 
was  particularly  careful  to  guard  against  anything  like  ex- 
aequation  of  the  natures.  While  Brentz  boldly  set  aside 
the  axiom  finitum  non  capax  i>ifi)iiti  as  virtually  rendering 
the  Incarnation  impossible,  Chemnitz  allowed  its  validity, 
and  admitted  that  no  divine  property  could  become  habit- 
ually or  formally  a  property  of  humanity.  He  therefore 
conceived  of  the  communication  in  question,  not  as  an 
endowment  of  the  human  nature  of  Christ  with  a  second- 
hand divinity,  which  after  the  endowment  has  once  taken 
place  it  can  claim  as  its  own,  but  rather  as  a  pervasion  of 
the  human  nature  by  the  divine,  using  it  as  its  organ,  and 
exerting  its  energy  in,  through,  and  with  it.2  His  watch- 
word, borrowed  from  John  of  Damascus,  is  7C£pixoopt;6n;  and 
his  favourite,  oft-repeated,  elaborately-expounded,  illustra- 
tive figure,  the  patristic  mass  of  heated  iron.  He  carefully 
prepares  his  way  for  the  assertion  and  proof  of  this  pervasion 
of  the  human  organ  by  the  divine  actor,  by  a  systematic 
classification  of  all  the  different  modes  in  which  communica- 
tion of  the  natures  can  take  place,  scrupulously  pointing  out 

1  De  duab.  nat.  pp.  186,  187:  De  modo  igitur  praesentiae  juxta  ratioi>em  et 
conditionem  hujus  seculi,  visibili,  sensibili,  locali  ac  circumscripta  dicta  ilia  loqu- 
untur — secundum  quern  modum  praesentiae  Christus  jam  ordinarie  ecclesiae  suae 
interris  non  amplius  est.  ...  Et  hac  etiam  forma  visibili  seu  conditione  corporum 
glonficatorum  Christus  corpore  suo,  nobis  in  hac  vita  in  ecclesia  in  terris  militante 
non  est  praesens,  sed  in  coelis,  unde  ad  judicium  redibit. 

2  De  duab.  nat.  p.  126:  Quod  scilicet  div.  nat.  rou  \6yov  non  transfuderit 
extra  se  in  assumptam  naluram  majestatem,  virtutem,  potentiam,  et  operationem 
eandem  cum  divina,  vel  aequalem  divinae  majestati,  virtuti,  potentiae,  et  opera- 
tion! quae  a  divinitate  separata,  proprie,  peculiariter  et  distinctim,  formaliter,  habi- 
laaliter  aut  subjective,  humanitati,  et  secundum  se  inhaerunt  sed  quod  tota  pleni- 
tudo  divinitatis  in  assumpta  natura  personaliter  ita  habitet,  ut  div.  majestas  tota 
sua  plenitudine  in  nat.  assumpta  luceat;  utque  div.  virtus,  et  potentia,  majestatis 
et  omnipotentiae  suae  opera  in  assumpta  natura  cum  ilia,  etper  illam  exerceat  et 
perficiat.  These  prepositions,  in,  cum,  per,  constitute  a  standing  formula  for 
Chemnitz. 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.  99 

how  far  the  Reformed  go  along  with  him,  and  showing 
manifest  anxiety  to  go  as  far  with  them  as  he  can.  Then 
at  length  he  takes  his  stand  on  this  point  of  difference;  but 
even  here  he  does  not  wholly  differ  from  his  opponents,  foi 
he  includes  under  his  third  and  highest  grade  not  only  the 
divine  properties  communicated  to  the  humanity  after  the 
manner  in  which  the  power  of  burning  is  conveyed  to  heated 
iron,  but  those  hyperphysical  extraordinary  gifts  and  graces 
with  which  the  Reformed  themselves  declared  the  human 
nature  of  Christ  to  have  been  endowed  in  order  that  it 
might  become  a  fit  organ  of  Deity.1  Indeed,  it  is  question- 
able whether  there  was  any  serious  difference  of  a  theoretical 
kind  between  the  Reformed  and  him.  For  granted,  on  the 
one  hand,  as  Chemnitz  does  grant,  that  the  divine  attributes 
are  the  divine  essence,  and  therefore  inseparable  from  it, 
and  on  the  other,  that  whatever  habitually  or  formally 
belongs  to  human  nature  must  be  finite,  there  does  not 
seem  much  harm  in  the  doctrine  of  perichoresis,  according 
to  which  the  Logos  pervaded  the  humanity  as  fire  pervades 
heated  iron,  or  the  human  soul  pervades  the  body.  The 
point  of  divergence  lay  not  so  much  in  the  theory  as  in 
the  use  made  of  it  in  connection  with  the  sacramentarian 
controversy.2 

The  position  taken  up  by  Chemnitz  on  the  subject  of 

1  De  duab.  nat.  caput  xii.  Chemnitz  was  the  first  to  make  such  a  classification, 
though  Damascenus  had  made  such  distinctions  as  might  easily  suggest  the  scheme 
to  his  mind.  He  distributed  idiomatic  propositions  into  three  classes:  the  first,  in 
which  the  subject  is  the  whole  person  in  concreto,  the  predicate  a  property  of  either 
nature;  the  second,  in  which  the  subject  is  either  nature,  the  predicate  an  activity 
pertaining  to  the  work  of  redemption  in  which  both  natures  concur;  the  third,  in 
which  divine  properties  are  ascribed  realiter  to  the  human  nature.  These  kinds 
of  propositions  in  the  dialect  of  the  Lutheran  scholastics  were  distinguished  respec- 
tively as  the  genus  idiomaticum,  the  genus  apotelismaticum,  and  the  genus  tnajes- 
taticum  or  auchematicum.  Strauss  (Glaubenslekre,  ii.  134)  remarks  that  to  be 
complete  a  fourth  genus  should  have  been  added,  viz.  genus  vaiTEtvGOTiKov;  in- 
cluding those  propositions  in  which  human  properties,  such  as  suffering,  death,  etc., 
are  ascribed  to  the  divine  nature.  The  dispute  between  the  Lutherans  and  the 
Reformed  had  reference  to  the  third  genus.  Thomasius  is  of  opinion  that  by  this 
classification  Chemnitz  did  no  real  service  to  Christology,  but  only  tended  to  foster  a 
scholastic  way  of  teaching  the  subject  (vol.  ii.  387). 

2  Dorner  (Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  204)  remarks  that  Danaeus  ob- 
jected mainly  to  the  second  part  of  Chemnitz'  treatise,  that  which  treats  of  the 
presence  of  the  whole  person  of  Christ  in  the  Church 


ioo  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

Christ's  bodily  presence  in  the  Supper,  and  in  the  Church 
generally,  was  different  both  from  that  of  the  Reformed  and 
from  that  of  Brentz.     His  characteristic  doctrine  is  not  that 
Christ  in  His  whole  person  is  everywhere  present,  but  that 
He  is  able  to  be  present  when,  where,  and  how  He  pleases, 
even  in  invisible  form.1     He  teaches  not  a  necessary  omni- 
presence, but    a    hypothetical    or   optional    multipresence. 
He    acknowledges    that    such    multipresence    is    not    only 
above,  but  contrary  to,  the  nature  of  body;  and  he  frankly 
admits    that    had    there  been  no  express  word  or  special 
promise  in  Scripture  concerning  Christ's  presence,  even  in 
His  human  nature,  in  the  Church,  he  would  neither  have 
dared  nor  wished  to  teach  anything  on  the  subject.     He 
dogmatizes  only  because  Christ  said,  "  This  is  my  body." 
And  he  thinks  it  right  to  limit    dogmatism  to   the  cases 
specified  in    Scripture.     He  declines    to    say  whether    the 
body  of  Christ  be  in  stones,  trees,  etc.,  as  Luther  affirmed, 
because  there  is  no  evidence  that  Christ  wishes  His  body 
to  be  there,  and  the  discussion  of  such  questions  yields  no 
edification;  and  for  the  rest,  all  such  mysteries  are  relegated 
to  the  Eternal  School,  to  which  our  author  often  piously 
refers,  and  where  he  humbly  hopes  to  learn  many  things  he 
does  not  understand  now,  and  among  them  the  incompre- 
hensible riddles  arising   out   of  the   Incarnation.     At  the 
same  time,  while  grounding  his  doctrine  of  potential  om- 
nipresence on  the  words  of  Scripture,  Chemnitz  holds  it 
to  be  a  legitimate   deduction  from  the  union    of  natures. 
For  him,  as  for  all  adherents  of  the  Lutheran  Christology, 
it    is    a   sacred    canon:  after  the  union  the  Logos    is   not 
outside  the  flesh,  nor  the  flesh  outside  the  Logos  {Logos non 
extra   carnem,   et   caro  non   extra  Aoyov).     To    deny   that 
canon,  as  the  Reformed  did,  is  to  deny  the  Incarnation.2 
From  this  canon  it  follows  that  the  humanity  is  always 

1  De  duab.  nat.  p.  188:  Christum,  licet  naturalem  modum  praesentiae  corporis 
sui,  onlinarie  terris  abstulerit  .  .  .  tamen  suo  corpore,  etiam  post  ascensionem, 
er  ante  judicium  praesentem  adesse,  aut  praesentiam  corporis  sui  exhibere  posse  in 
terris,  quandocunque,  ubicunque  et  quomodocunque  vult,  etiam  invisibili  forma. 

2  De  duab.  nat.  p.  20:  Quae  unio  adeo  arcta,  individua,  inseparabilis,  et  indis- 
solubilis  est,  ut  div.  nat.  rvv  Xoyov  nee  velit,  nee  possit,  nee  debeat  extra  hanc 
cum  carne  unionem,  sed  in  arctissima  ilia  unione  cogitari,  quaeri,  aut  apprehendi 
caro  etiam  assumpta,  non  extra,  sed  intra  intimum  rov  Xoyov  assumentis  com 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.        101 

intimately,  inseparably,  and  indistanter  present  to  the 
Logos;"  and  from  this  presence  to  the  Logos  follows  in 
turn  the  possibility  of  the  humanity  being  present  at  will 
to  any  part  of  the  creation.  Why  only  the  possibility  is 
inferred,  is  a  question  which  naturally  arises.  One  would 
suppose  that  if  the  humanity  be  always  present  to  the 
Logos  in  virtue  of  the  union,  it  must  also  be  present  in 
some  manner,  local  or  illocal,  to  the  universe.  But  it  is 
not  our  business  to  justify,  but  merely  to  expound,  the  theory 
now  under  consideration.  This  limitation  of  the  effect  of 
the  union  and  communion  of  the  natures  to  a  merely 
potential  omnipresence  or  multipresence  was  the  peculiarity 
of  Chemnitz  and  his  school,  and  one  of  the  outstanding 
points  of  difference  between  him  and  Brentz.  It  was  a 
point  greatly  debated  in  after  days  in  the  controversy 
between  the  Giessen  and  the  Tubingen  theologians;  the 
Giessen  men  contending  for  the  distinction  between  the 
two  kinds  of  presence,  that  to  the  Logos  and  that  to  the 
world,  which  had  come  to  be  named  respectively  praesentia 
intima  and  praesentia  extima,  and  holding  that  the  former 
involved  only  the  possibility  of  the  latter;  the  Tubingen 
men  holding  that  the  distinction  in  question  was  imaginary, 
and  that  a  potential  omnipresence  was  an  absurdity.  The 
course  of  the  debate  ran  into  very  subtle  discussions,  which 
it  would  be  unprofitable  and  tedious  to  speak  of  here. 
Suffice  it  to  say,  that  much  use  was  made  on  the  Giessen 
side  of  the  Chemnitzian  conception  of  the  divine  majesty 
communicated  to  Christ's  humanity  as  ENERGY:  the  Logos, 

plexum  cogitanda,  quarenda,  et  apprehenda  est.  Again,  p.  194:  Ratione  hypos- 
taticae  unionis  jam  post  Incarnationem,  persona  rov  \6yov  extra  unionem  cum 
assumpta  natura,  et  sine  ea  seorsim  aut  separatim,  nee  cogitari  nee  credi  pie  et 
recte  vel  potest  vel  debet;  nee  vicissim  assumpta  natura  extra  Xoyov,  et  sine  eo. 
1  De  duab.  nat.  p.  195:  Ita  ergo  toti  plenitudini  Deitatis  filii  personaliter  unita 
est  assumpta  nat.  ut  \6yoS  intra  arcanum,  arctissimum,  intimum,  profundissimum 
et  praesentissimum  complexum  totius  div.  suae  naturae,  quae  supra  et  extra  omnem 
locum  est,  secum,  intra  se,  apud  se,  et  penes  se,  personaliter  unitam  atque  prae- 
sentissimam  semper  habeat,  et  in  ilia  plenitudine  unitae  Deitatis  assumpta  natura 
suam  aSiaiftsrov  xai  aduxdrazov,  juxta  Damascenum,  individuam  seu  msep- 
arabilem,  et  indistantem,  seu  locorum  intervallo  indisjunctam  habeat  immanentiam. 
Haec  vero  praesentia  non  constat  ratione  aliqua  aut  conditione  hujus  seculi.  quae 
ratione  nostra  comprehendi  possit,  sed  est  magnum,  incomprehensibile  et  irm^o^r- 
rabile  illud  mystenum  hypostaticae  unionis. 


102  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

according  to  Chemnitz,  communicated  His  energy  to  the 
human  nature,  as  heat  communicates  its  virtue  to  iron. 
By  this  way  of  conceiving  the  matter  he  tried  to  meet  the 
objection,  that  if  any  divine  attributes  were  communicated 
to  Christ's  human  nature,  all  must  have  been,  for  example, 
eternity  and  immensity.  These  attributes,  he  said,  are 
quiescent;  they  remain  within  the  divine  essence;  they  have 
no  operation  ad  extra;  therefore  they  are  not  directly  com- 
municated, but  only  indirectly  through  their  connection 
in  the  divine  nature  with  the  operative  attributes.1  The 
Giessen  theologians  applied  this  distinction  between  opera- 
tive and  inoperative  attributes  to  the  question  of  ubiquity. 
They  said,  by  omnipresence  is  meant  not  immensity,  which 
is  an  incommunicable  attribute  of  Deity,  but  presence  in  the 
world  as  an  actor, — operative  omnipresence.  But  God  is 
free  in  action,  therefore  He  is  free  to  be  present  to  the 
world  or  not  as  He  pleases.  The  use  of  presence  is  a  matter 
of  free  will.*  This  sample  of  controversial  subtlety  may 
suffice  as  an  illustration  of  the  thorny  paths  into  which  the 
dialectics  of  the  Lutheran  Christology  led  its  adherents. 
Let  us  return  to  Chemnitz,  that  we  may,  in  the  last  place, 
make  ourselves  acquainted  with  his  view  of  the  exinanition. 
On  this  subject,  as  on  that  of  ubiquity,  the  position  taken 
up  by  Chemnitz  is  difficult  to  understand,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  it  is  not  self-consistent,  being  an  eclectic  at- 
tempt to  combine  opposite  points  of  view.  Generally 
speaking,  however,  his  doctrine  may  be  discriminated  from 
that  taught  by  Brentz  as  follows.  The  Brentian  state  of 
exinanition  (status  exinanitionis)  consisted  in  possession, 
with  habitual  furtive  use  of  majesty;  the  Chemnitzian,  in 
possession,  with  occasional  use  and  prevailing  non-use. 
According  to  Brentz,  Christ  in  His  state  of  humiliation  not 
only  could  use,  but  did  use,  and  could  not  help  using,  His 
majesty  as  a  communicated  attribute  of  His  human  nature; 
only  in  that  state  the  use  was  dissembled,  hidden;  while 
in  the  state  of  exaltation  it  is  open.  According  to  Chem- 
nitz, Christ  in  the  state  of  humiliation  cou/d  use  majesty  in, 
through,  and  with  His  humanity,  and  sometimes  did  use  it 

1  De  duab.  nat.  p.  127. 

5  U^urpatio  praesentiae  est  liberrimae  voluntatis;  see  Thomasius,  vol.  ii.  p.  431 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies .         103 

to  show  the  fact  of  possession;  but  generally  He  did  not 
wish  to  use  it.  In  the  state  of  exaltation,  on  the  other 
hand,  He  entered  into  the  full  and  manifest  use  of  His  di- 
vine majesty  in  and  by  His  assumed  human  nature.1  Some- 
times Chemnitz  seems  inclined  to  ascribe  not  only  partial 
use,  but  even  partial  defective  possession,  to  the  status  hu- 
milis.  He  adopts  from  Ambrose  the  idea  of  a  retraction 
on  the  part  of  the  Logos,  as  explaining  the  exinanition. 
The  power,  he  says,  and  operation  of  the  Logos  was  not 
\6\q  per  se  in  the  time  of  exinanition,  but  administered  all 
things  everywhere  with  the  Father  and  the  Spirit;  but  in 
the  human  nature  during  that  time  He  concealed  His 
glory,  power,  and  operation  under  the  infirmities  of  the 
flesh,  and,  as  Ambrose  speaks,  withdrew  it  from  activity,* 
so  that  natural  properties  and  infirmities  alone  seemed  to 
abide  and  predominate  in  the  assumed  nature  not  merely 
in  the  face  of  men,  but  even  before  God;  while,  neverthe- 
less, that  fulness  of  divinity  in  the  Logos  elsewhere  per- 
formed most  powerfully  all  things  with  the  Father  and  the 
Holy  Ghost."  This  passage  not  only  teaches  by  implica- 
tion partial  non- possession  of  majesty  by  the  humanity  in< 
the  state  of  humiliation,  but  involves  a  contradiction  of  the- 
Lutheran  axiom,  Logos  non  extra  carnem,  representing  the 
Logos  as,  in  the  state  of  humiliation,  operative  where  the 

1  Chemnitz'  usual  phrase  to  describe  the  exaltation  is  the  plenary  and  manifest 
use  and  exhibition  of  majesty.  Thus,  cap.  xxxiii.  p.  215:  Per  sessionem  vero  ad 
dexteram  Dei  ingressus  est  in  plenariam  et  manifestam  usurpationem  et  ostensionem 
ejus  potentiae,  virtutis,  et  gloriae  Deitatis,  quae  tota  plenitudine  personaliter  in 
assumpta  natura  ab  initio  unionis  habitavit.  Thomasius  (ii.  401)  represents  Chem- 
nitz as  applying  the  terms  plenaria  and  manifest  a  to  po  ssessio  as  well  as  usurpatio, 
in  describing  the  state  of  exaltation,  and  quotes  in  proof  the  following:  Deposita 
servi  forma,  assumpta  natura  humana  ad  plenariam  et  manifestam  ejus  majestatis 
possessionem  et  usurpationem,  per  sessionem  ad  dextram  Dei,  collocata  et  exaltata 
est.  These  words  have  escaped  my  observation  in  reading  Chemnitz'  treatise,  but 
it  is  quite  possible  they  do  occur;  for  the  author's  doctrine  is  not  self-consistent, 
the  retractio  of  which  he  speaks  really  implying  partial  non-possession,  defective 
nepix^P'n^1''^  imperfect  communication  of  heat  to  the  iron;  and,  moreover,  a 
similar  mode  of  expression  occurs  in  the  Formula  of  Concord  which  Chemnitz 
helped  to  compose;  see  part  ii.  cap.  viii.  §  26:  Ad  plenam  possessionem,  et  div. 
majestatis  usurpationem  evectus  est. 

2  Ab  opere  retraxit,  p.  217. 

3  Cum  tamen  interea  plenitudo  ilia  divinitatis  Xoyov  alibi  omnia  fortissime  cunp 
Patre  et  Spiritu  Sancto  operaretur. — P.  217. 


104  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

humanity  was  not.  Yet  Chemnitz  can  hardly  have  meant 
to  teach  the  Calvinistic  extra,  as  it  was  called  by  the  Tu- 
bingen theologians  of  a  later  generation  in  their  warfare 
with  their  opponents  of  Giessen,  whom  they  charged  with 
entertaining  that  notion  so  abhorrent  to  all  thoroughgoing 
Lutherans;  for  he  speaks  of  Christ,  even  in  the  state  of 
humiliation,  as  showing  when  He  wished  that  the  fulness 
of  divinity  dwelt  in  His  flesh,  and  as  manifesting  its  use  as 
far  as  He  wished  through  the  assumed  nature.1  On  the 
whole,  his  idea  of  the  exinanition  seems  to  have  been  full 
possession,  the  necessary  consequence  of  the  personal 
union,  but  prevalent  abstinence  from  use,  so  as  to  present 
the  aspect  of  non-possession, — the  mass  of  iron  being  heat- 
ed through  and  through,  yet  remaining  black  to  sight  and 
cold  to  feeling.  The  illustration  is  the  author's  own,  and 
it  serves  well  not  only  to  explain  his  idea,  but  to  show  the. 
difficulty  of  his  theory  of  a  possession  unaccompanied  by 
use.  Exinanition  in  this  view  is  a  perpetual  miracle,  well 
characterized  by  the  author  himself  as  incomprehensible 
and  indescribable.2  When  the  theory  is  applied  to  om- 
niscience, the  exinanition  appears  not  only  a  miracle,  but, 
as  the  school  of  Tubingen  maintained  against  the  school 
of  Giessen,  an  impossibility.  For  what  can  we  understand 
by  abstinence  from  the  use  of  omniscience  ?  Chemnitz  him- 
self seems  to  have  found  it  hard  to  tell,  for  his  statement 
on  this  point  looks  like  the  utterance  of  a  man  at  his  wits' 
end.  "Christ,  as  to  His  divine  nature,  had  omniscience; 
as  to  His  human  nature,  He  had  infused  habits  of  knowledge 
in  which  He  grew.  But  even  when  He  grew  in  wisdom  He 
was  full  of  wisdom,  because  the  plenitude,  as  of  Deity,  so 
of  wisdom  and  divine  knowledge,  dwelt  personally  in  the 

1  Christus,  ipso  tempore  exinanitionis,  quanrlo  voluit  ostendit  plenitudinem  illam 
in  sua  carne  habitare,  et  usum  ejus  quando  voluit,  et  quantum  voluit,  per  assump. 
tarn  naturam,  ipso  exinanitionis  tempore  exercuit,  manifestavit,  exeruit. 

-  Haec  est  incomprehensibilis  et  inennarrabilis  exinanitio.  Infinitis  enim  modis 
plus  est,  quam  si  ignis  in  ferro  prorsus  ignito,  nee  speciem,  nee  vim,  nee  operati- 
onem  suam  exereret. — P.  217.  Again,  p.  218:  Si  in  ferro  undiquaque  perfecte 
ignito  Deus  manifestationem  et  operationem  virtutis  lucendi  et  urendi  ad  tempus 
supersedeas  ut  frigidum,  nigrum,  et  obscurum  videntibus  et  contrectantilms  ap- 
pareret.  That  represents  the  state  of  humiliation.  The  ^-tate  of  exaltation  is  whar 
Jhe  iron  is  not  only  heated,  but  shows  its  heat— vim  suum  lucendi  et  urendi 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.         io5 

assumed  nature,  in  which  and  through  which,  as  far  as  the 
exinanition  would  allow,  it  manifested  itself  more  and  more. 
Whence  in  the  time  of  exinanition  Christ's  human  nature 
could  be  ignorant  and  grow  in  wisdom;  but  in  the  state  of 
exaltation  it  is  omniscient  indeed."  1 

Such  were  the  two  forms  which  the  Lutheran  Christol- 
ogy  assumed  in  the  hands  of  Brentz  and  Chemnitz.  It  is 
manifest  that  they  present  sufficient  points  of  difference  to 
make  any  attempt  at  reconciliation  somewhat  difficult. 
An  attempt,  however,  was  made  by  representatives  of  the 
Swabian  and  Lower  Saxon  schools, — Chemnitz  himself 
taking  a  leading  part  in  the  work  of  reconciliation, — and 
the  Formula  of  Concord  was  the  result.  The  method  of 
reconciliation  adopted  in  the  composition  of  this  ecclesi- 
astical symbol  was  that  of  giving  and  taking;  opposite 
points  of  view  being  placed  side  by  side,  and  troublesome 
questions  being  passed  over  sub  silentio.  It  was  declared, 
e.g.,  that  in  the  personal  union  each  nature  retains  its  es- 
sential properties;  but  while  the  essential  properties  of  the 
divine  nature  are  carefully  enumerated,  the  essential  prop- 
erties of  the  human  nature  are  not  distinguished  from  the 
accidental.  To  be  bounded  and  circumscribed,  and  to  be 
moved  from  place  to  place,  are  mixed  up  with  properties 
which  are  certainly  accidental,  such  as  to  suffer  and  die; 
and  we  are  not  told  whether  the  former  are  essential  or 
not.  The  whole  list  are  simply  called  properties.  It  is 
further  declared  that  the  human  nature  of  Christ  was  ex- 
alted to  the  possession  of  divine  properties  over  and  above 
its  own  spiritual  and  natural  ones;  and  that  this  exaltation 
to  divine  majesty  took  place  first  through  the  personal  union, 
even  from  the  moment  of  conception,  and  afterward  through 
glorification  after  the  resurrection;  and  in  proof  of  the  pos- 
session of  majesty  from  the  first,  is  adduced  birth  from  the 
Virgin  inviolata  ipsius  virginitater  This  majesty  of  the  hu- 
man nature,  however,  we  are  told,  was  for  the  most  part 
concealed  in  the  state  of  exinanition,  and  as  it  were  dis- 
sembled,— secret  use  being  implied.3  Yet  in  another  place 
possession  without  use,  kenosis  as  to  use  in  opposition  to 

'  P.  139.  2  Formula  of  Concord,  part  ii.  c.  viii.  8. 

3  Formula  of  Concord,  part  ii.  c.  viii.  12,  13. 


106  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

krypsis,  is  asserted.1  Christ  always  was  in  possession  of 
the  majesty  in  virtue  of  the  personal  union,  but  He  emptied 
Himself  in  the  state  of  humiliation;  and  hence  it  came  that 
He  grew  in  age,  wisdom,  and  grace,  and  only  after  His 
resurrection  entered  into  a  plenary  use,  as  a  man,  of  omni- 
science, omnipotence,  and  omnipresence;  or,  as  it  is  put  in 
another  place,  into  a  full  possession  and  use  of  divine  ma- 
jesty.2 On  the  subject  of  ubiquity,  both  a  hypothetical 
and  a  general  or  necessary  omnipresence  were  taught.  The 
Chemnitzian  phrase,  Christ  can  be  with  His  body  wherever 
He  wishes,  is  used,  and  at  the  same  time  quotations  from 
Luther  are  made,  which  assert  in  the  strongest  possible 
manner  an  absolute  omnipresence,  rendering  of  course  the 
assertion  of  a  power  to  be  present  anywhere  at  pleasure 
quite  superfluous.  Of  the  distinction  suggested  by  Chem- 
nitz between  presence  to  the  Logos  and  presence  to  the 
world,  no  notice  is  taken. 

A  document  constructed  on  such  a  principle  of  compro- 
mise, and  so  open  to  a  double  interpretation,  was  not  likely 
to  put  an  end  to  controversy;  and  certainly  the  Formula 
of  Concord  utterly  failed  to  produce  that  effect.  It  only 
supplied  material  for  fresh  disputes  to  another  generation, 
in  which  the  combatants  ranged  themselves  respectively 
on  the  Brentian  and  the  Chemnitzian  sides;  each  party 
being  able  to  find  something  in  the  formula  in  support  of 
its  particular  views.  On  one  most  important  subject  the 
symbol  was  specially  vague  and  unsatisfactory,  that,  viz.,  of 
the  relation  of  the  majesty  communicated  to  the  human 
nature  of  Christ,  by  the  personal  union,  to  His  earthly  state 
of  humiliation.  It  seemed  to  teach  at  once  full  possession 
and  secret  use;  full  possession  and  prevalent  abstinence 
from  use;  and  not  only  partial  use,  but  even  partial  and 
defective  possession.  Here  was  a  question  around  which 
fierce  strife  was  sure  to  be  waged.  Possession  with  hidden 
use,  or  possession  without  use,  involving  in  some  sense 
even  defective  possession;  on  which  side  did  the  truth  lie  ? 

1  Formula  of  Concord,  part  ii.  c.  viii.  66. 

8  Ibid,  part  i.  c.  viii.  16.  In  part  ii.  cap.  viii.  22,  a  partial  and  occasionally 
manifest  use  of  majesty  by  Christ,  pro  Uberrima  voluntate  in  the  statu  exinaniti 
onis  is  taught. 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.  107 

Around  these  points  skirmishing  went  on  incessantly  for  a 
generation,  until  at  length  the  great  final  war  between 
Tubingen  and  Giessen  broke  out,  in  which  the  combatants 
went  into  battle  to  the  respective  war-cries  of  krypsis  and 
kenosis,  and  fought  with  indomitable  prowess  and  deadly 
bitterness  for  the  space  of  some  twenty  years,  till  its  noise 
was  drowned  in  the  louder  din  of  a  still  more  protracted 
war,  carried  on  for  another  cause,  with  more  substantial  but 
not  more  carnal  weapons.1 

1.  Proceeding  now  to  offer  a  few  critical  observations  on 
the  Lutheran  Christology,  I  begin  by  repeating  a  remark 
already  made,  that  the  principle  on  which  the  system  is 
based  is  therein  arbitrarily  applied.  That  principle  is,  that 
the  union  of  natures  in  one  person  involves  communication 
of  attributes;  and  there  seems  to  be  no  reason  a  priori  why 
the  communication  should  not  be  reciprocal.2  But  we  are 
given  to  understand  that  the  communication  is  all  on 
one  side;  divine  attributes  are  communicated  to  the  human 
nature,  but  not  vice  versa.  The  axioms  finitmn  non  ca- 
pax  infiniti  is  set  aside,  while  the  correlative  proposition 
infinitum  non  capax  finiti  is  assumed  to  be  axiomatically 
certain.  In  the  classification  of  the  various  kinds  of  com- 
munications, one,  by  which  the  human  nature  becomes 
partaker  of  the  majesty  of  Deity,  is  recognised;  but  for  one 
by  which  the  divine  nature  becomes  partaker  of  the  weak- 
ness, and  subject  to  the  measures  of  human  nature,  no  place 
is  found.3     God  is  not  at  liberty  to  descend;  He  can  only 

1  See  Appendix,  Note  B. 

a  Gerhard  says  on  this  point:  In  hoc  communicationis  genere  reciprocatio  non 
habet  locum.  Ratio  haec  est,  quia  div.  nat.  est  simpliciter  dvaXXoioonoZ  ycai 
djiiETCcftXqroS,  ideoper  unionem  nee  perfici,  nee  minui,  nee  evehi,  nee  deprim: 
potuit;  hum.  autem  nat.  quia  humilis  est  et  kvSerji  ideo  per  unionem  potuit  exal- 
tari,  evehi  ac  perfici.  Nee  est,  quod  regeras,  unionem  esse  reciprocam,  proinds 
etiam  communicationem.  Quamvis  autem  unio  respectu  sui  ipsius  considerata  sit 
aequalis  et  reciproca,  tamen  ratione  unitarum  naturarum  considerata  exhibet  nobis 
hanc  differentiam,  quod  in  unione  6  AoyoS  sit  assumens,  caro  autem  sit  assumpta: 
6  AoyoS  assumpsit  carnem,  caro  autem  non  assumpsit  Xoyov,  jam  vero  assumpti 
provectio  est,  non  assumentis,  ut  dicunt  pii  veteres. — Loci  iv.  c.  xii.  §  cci. 

s  Thomasius,  ii.  p.  459,  points  out  that  the  Tubingen  theologians  in  their  con 
troversy  with  the  Giessen  school  taught  a  genus  tapeinoticon,  and  says  that  in  this 
they  returned  to  Luther,  and  enriched  the  Lutheran  Christology.     This  genus, 
however,  called   idiOTtoirjdii   or  oiHsicoiii?,   was   not  analogous  to  the  genus 


ioS  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

make  man  ascend:  Incarnation  means  not  God  becoming 
man,  but  man  becoming  God.  Now  this  one-sided  appli- 
cation of  the  distinctive  principle  might  be  politic  and 
prudent,  but  it  is  not  logical;  nor  can  it  boast  of  any  moral 
recommendations  to  compensate  for  its  want  of  logic.  It  is 
not  a  doctrine  worthy  of  all  acceptation,  that  Incarnation 
cannot  possibly  mean  the  humiliation  of  God,  but  must 
signify  the  exaltation  or  deification  of  man.  It  is  a  doctrine 
contrary  to  the  spirit  of  Scripture,1  and  to  right  ideas  of 
the  glory  of  God.  This  constant  talk  about  the  majesty 
communicated  to  the  humanity  of  Christ  in  virtue  of  the 
personal  union,  savours  of  moral  vulgarity,  inasmuch  as  it 
implies  that  God's  glory  lies  not  in  His  grace,  but  chiefly 
in  being  infinite,  omnipotent,  omnipresent,  and  so  forth. 
If  obliged  to  make  a  choice,  I  would  rather  take  up  with 
the  genus  tapeinoticum  than  with  the  genus  auchematicum, 
to  speak  in  the  language  of  the  schools;  in  plain  terms,  a 
God  letting  Himself  down  to  man's  level  seems  a  grander 
thing  than  a  God  raising  man  to  His  level,  especially  when 
the  latter  is  not  an  act  of  grace,  but  of  necessity,  a  con- 
dition sine  qua  non  of  Incarnation. 

2.  The  Lutheran  Christology,  to  say  the  least,  threat- 
ens with  extinction  the  reality  of  Christ's  human  nature. 
Doubtless  its  advocates  are  careful  to  say  that  each  nature 
after  the  union  retains  its  essential  properties,  and  to  pro- 
test against  their  doctrine  being  held  to  imply  confusion, 
equalization,  or  abolition  of  the  natures;  and,  of  course, 
we  believe  that  they  did  not  mean  to  teach  such  errors. 
But  if  the  question  be,  What  are  the  logical  consequences 
of  their  theory  ?  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  such  conclusions 
can  be  avoided.  It  does  not  suffice  to  save  the  reality  of 
the  humanity  to  say,  with  Brentz,  that  the  Deity  possessed 

anchematicum.  Neither  the  Tubingen  theologians  nor  Luther  ascribed  to  the  di- 
vine nature  human  qualities  as  they  ascribed  human  qualities  to  the  human  nature; 
but  only  in  the  sense  in  which  the  Reformed  understood  the  doctrine  of  the  com- 
municatio  idiomatum, 

'■  Lutheran  theologians  admitted  that  the  ancients  identified  exinanitio  with  incar- 
natio.  but  claimed  to  have  Scripture  on  their  side  when  they  taught  that  exinanitio 
proper  was  subsequent  in  idea  to  the  Incarnation.  Hence  they  called  exinanitio 
in  the  former  sense  ecclesiastica,  and  exinanitio  in  their  own  sense  Biblica.  Se 
Gerhard,  loci  iv.  cap.  xiv.  §  xciii. 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.         109 

by  that  nature  is  a  communicated  one;  for  the  whole  ques- 
tion is,  whether  such  communication  be  compatible  with  the 
nature  of  that  humanity.  As  to  the  attribute  of  ubiquity, 
indeed,  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  ingenious  distinction 
between  local  and  illocal  presence  evades  the  argument 
drawn  by  the  Reformed  from  the  reality  of  Christ's  body 
against  the  ascription  of  that  attribute  to  the  human  nature. 
If  any  one  choose  to  ascribe  to  Christ's  body  an  illocal 
ubiquity,  he  cannot  be  refuted,  any  more  than  he  could  be 
refuted  were  he  to  ascribe  a  similar  ubiquity  to  the  body 
of  any  ordinary  man.  The  only  question  is,  whether  this 
illocal  ubiquity  be  itself  a  reality,  or  only  a  mere  ghost, 
with  which  no  man  can  fight, — an  invention  to  save  a 
theory,  and  by  which,  while  saved  in  appearance,  the 
theory  is  substantially  sacrificed.  The  authors  of  the  Re- 
formed reply  to  the  Fornuda  of  Concord  characterized  the 
Lutheran  distinctions  between  various  kinds  of  presences 
as  impudent  and  wicked  sophisms,  cunningly  and  fraud- 
ulently devised  to  defend  a  false  position.1  This  may  be 
rather  strong  language,  but  the  statement  is  substantially 
correct;  and  one  cannot  but  feel  that  when  once  refuge  was 
taken  in  the  epithet  "  illocal,"  the  controversy  concerning 
the  communication  of  omnipresence  to  the  humanity  of 
Christ  degenerated,  as  Le  Blanc  hints,  into  a  mere  logo- 
machy.2 The  distinction  between  the  two  kinds  of  presence 
is  virtually  a  giving  up  of  the  theory.  The  same  remark 
may  be  made  with  reference  to  the  Chemnitzian  mode  of 

1  Admonitio  Neostadtiensis,  c.  viii.,  falsa  hypothesis  iv.  Hae  strophae  et 
Sphingis  aenigmala  nihil  sunt  nisi  impudentissima  et  nequissima  sophismata  ad1 
illudendum  Deo,  et  decipiendos  homines,  versute  et  fraudulenter  excogitata,  etc. 
The  Admonitio  is  contained  among  the  works  of  Zachary  Ursinus,  the  author  and 
expositor  of  the  Heidelberg  Catechism. 

2  Theses  Theologicae:  De  unione  duarum  in  Christo  naturarum  et  inde  conse- 
quente  idiomatum  communicatione.  Le  Blanc  says:  Qua.  in  controversia  forte  plus 
est  logomachiae  atque  pertinaciae,  quam  realis  discriminis,  nam  aliquo  sensu  con. 
cedere  possumus,  realem  communicationem  proprietatum  naturae  divinae  naturae 
Christi  humanae  factum  esse,  quatenus  ut  dictum  est,  in  natura  ilia  humana  realitei 
et  personaliter  inhabitat,  et  est  divinitas  cum  omnibus  suis  proprietatibus,  quemad- 
modum  realiter  ignis  est  in  ferro  ignito,  sed  quemadmodum  ex  ilia  ignis  cum  ferro 
unione  recte  quidem  dicere  possumus,  ferrum  hoc  urit,  ferrum  hoc  candit,  non 
tamen  recte  dicitur,  ferreitas  urit,  ferreitas  lucet,  quia  ignis  in  ferro,  non  ipsa  tameu 
ferri  natura,  ita  agit. 


1 10  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

conceiving  the  communication  of  divine  attributes  in  gen- 
eral to  the  human  nature  as  analogous  to  the  pervasion  of 
iron  by  heat.  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  this  manner  of 
representing  the  matter  effectually  guards  against  equaliz- 
ing of  the  natures.  But  it  does  this  by  failing  to  teach  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  communication.  For  what  the  heat 
communicates  to  the  iron  is  not  anything  contrary  to,  or 
even  above,  the  nature  of  the  latter;  for  it  is  the  nature  of 
iron  to  receive  heat,  and  by  it  to  be  made  hot  and  lumin- 
ous. This  illustration,  therefore,  of  heated  iron,  to  which 
Chemnitz  was  so  partial,  does  not  suffice  to  justify  a  com 
munication  of  all  divine  attributes  to  the  human  nature, 
but  only  such  a  communication  as  the  Reformed  Christology 
allowed, — a  communication,  viz.,  of  all  the  gifts  and  graces 
which  human  nature  is  capable  of  receiving.1 

3.  This  theory,  consistently  worked  out,  leaves  no  room 
for  such  an  exinanition  in  the  earthly  life  of  Christ  as  shall 
satisfy  the  requirements  of  historical  truth  and  the  aim.  of 
the  Incarnation.  The  humiliation  which  is  admitted  to  be 
soteriologically  necessary  is  Christologically  impossible. 
The  act  of  Incarnation  endows  the  human  nature  of  Christ 
with  attributes,  of  which  no  doctrine  of  exinanition,  how- 
ever ingeniously  constructed,  can  deprive  it,  without  de- 
stroying the  Christological  basis  on  which  the  whole 
superstructure  rests.  The  distinction  between  possession 
and  use  is  entirely  inadequate  to  the  task  of  reducing  the 
humanity,  supposed  to  be  already  endowed  with  divine  ma- 
jesty, to  the  sober  measures  of  the  kenosis.  This  is  specially 
manifest  in  reference  to  the  attributes  of  omniscience  and 
omnipresence,  to  which  the  distinction  cannot  even  be  in- 
telligibly applied.  No  doubt  attempts  were  made  by  the 
Lutheran  theologians  to  apply  the  distinction  to  these  at- 

1  The  Reformed  theologians  were  not  slow  to  point  this  out.  Sadeel,  e.  g. , 
remarks  that  the  ancients  used  the  simile  of  the  burning  sword  principally  with 
reference  to  the  soul  of  Christ,  to  show  how  it  gained  from  union  with  the  Logos, 
e.  g.  in  being  sinless.  He  also  remarks  that  though  fire  gives  to  iron  heat  and 
light,  it  does  not  give  it  its  own  property  of  ascending,  and  in  like  manner  "  d 
XoyoZ  non  ea  tribuit  hum.  nat.  quorum  hum.  ipsa  nat.  capax  esse  non  potest, 
cujusmodi  est  infinitum  esse  et  ubique  esse,  sed  earn  illustrat  suo  fulgore,  et  exornal 
dotibus  incomprehensibilibus,  quatenus  ipsius  naturae  conditio  fieri  potest." — Dt 
Vcritate  Humanae  Naturae  Christi,  pp.  1S4,  185.  To  the  same  effect  the  Adtnotu 
A'c-ost. 


Lutheran  mid  Reformed  Christologies.  1 1 1 

tributes  by  the  invention  of  other  still  more  subtle  distinc- 
tions; but  these  attempts  bear  failure  stamped  on  their  front. 
Gerhard,  for  example,  following  Chemnitz,  disposes  of  the 
omniscience  of  Christ  in  the  state  of  exinanition  in  the  fol- 
lowing fashion:  "We  teach  that  the  soul  of  Jesus  in  the 
very  first  moment  of  the  Incarnation  was  personally  en- 
riched, as  with  other  divine  excellences,  so  also  with  the 
proper  omniscience  of  the  Logos,  through  and  in  virtue  of 
the  real,  most  intimate,  and  indissoluble  union  and  com- 
munion with  the  Logos.  But  as  He  did  not  always  use 
His  other  gifts  truly  and  really  communicated  to  Him  in 
the  state  of  exinanition,  so  also  the  omniscience  personally 
communicated  to  Him  as  man  He  did  not  always  exercise 
actn  secnndo,  and  hence  the  soul  of  Christ  truly  made  pro- 
gress according  to  natural  and  habitual  knowledge, — the 
omniscient  Logos  not  always  exercising  through  the  as- 
sumed humanity  His  energy,  which  is  actu  to  know  all 
things,  but  in  the  state  of  exaltation  the  full  use  of  omnis- 
cience at  length  ensued."1  The  distinction  taken  in  this 
passage  between  the  omniscience  which  the  soul  of  Christ 
possesses  personaliter,  and  the  limited  knowledge  which  it 
possessed  naturaliter,  means,  if  it  means  anything,  that  the 
attribute  of  omniscience  was  not  really  communicated  to 
the  human  nature,  but  was  merely  possessed  by  the  divine 
person  to  whom  that  nature  was  united.  That  is  to  say, 
the  positing  of  the  distinction  is  the  giving  up  of  the  Lu- 
theran theory,  and  a  virtual  return  to  the  Reformed  point  of 
view.     As  for  the  other  distinction  between  being  omnis- 

1  Loci  iv.  c.  xii.  §  cclxxix. :  Docemus  animam  Christi  in  primo  status  incarna 
tionis  momenta,  ut  aliis  divinis  eiox<xts,  ita  quoque  omniscientia  zov  Xoyov 
propria  personaliter  esse  ditatam  per  et  propter  realem,  arctissimam  et  indissolu- 
bilem  cum  Xoyw  omniscio  unionem  et  uoivoaviav.  Sed  ut  aliis  donis,  vere  ac 
realiter  sibi  communicatis  in  statu  exinanitionis,  non  semper  est  usus,  ita  quoque 
omniscientiam  personaliter  sibi  ut  humini  communicatam  non  semper  actu  secundc 
exeruit,  ac  proinde  anima  Christi  juxta  naturalem  et  habitaalem  scientiam  vere 
profuit;  Xoy<3  omniscio  Ivspysiav  suam,  quae  est  actu  omnia  scire  et  cognos- 
cere,  per  assumptam  humanitatem  non  semper  exerente,  sed  in  statu  exaltationi? 
plena  demum  omniscientiae  usurpatio  fuit  insequuta.  Readers  will  observe  in  this 
passage  a  confusion  of  the  person  of  Christ  with  His  human  nature.  This  use  of 
the  concrete  in  place  of  the  abstract,  the  man  instead  of  the  humanity,  is  charac- 
teristic of  the  Lutherans,  and  was  a  frequent  source  of  complaint  on  the  part  oi 
the  Reformed. 


1 1 2  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

cient  actu  prima,  and  exercising  omniscience  actu  secundo, 
it  is  simply  one  of  the  many  subtleties  which  abound  in  the 
Lutheran  Christology,  and  tend  to  create  suspicion  as  to 
the  soundness  of  a  theory  which  stands  in  need  of  them. 

The  same  thing  may  be  said  of  the  Chemnitzian  distinc- 
tion between  praesentia  intima  or  praesentia  extima,  in- 
tended to  apply  the  principle  of  possession  without  use  to 
the  attribute  of  omnipresence.  The  Tubingen  theologians 
correctly  characterized  it  as  an  ingenious  invention  for  the 
purpose  of  concealing  the  weak  point  in  the  system  of  their 
opponents.2  It  is,  in  truth,  simply  a  disguised  retreat  from 
the  Lutheran  position,  Logos  non  extra  carnem,  which  can- 
not be  maintained  unless  one  be  prepared  to  assert  with 
the  school  of  Tubingen,  that  wherever  the  Son  of  God  is, 
there  is  the  Son  of  man;  and  inasmuch  as  the  Son  of  God, 
even  in  the  time  of  the  humiliation,  was  not  only  present 
to  His  flesh,  but  by  a  substantial  propinquity  to  all  creatures, 
therefore  also  the  human  nature  assumed  into  the  unity  of 
the  person  was  not  only  present  to  the  Word,  but  also  by 
a  substantial  propinquity  to  all  creatures.3 

Speaking  generally,  it  may  be  said  that  the  Chemnitzian 
school  of  Christologists  saved  the  historical  Christ,  by  in 
effect  sacrificing  the  communication  of  properties  in  the 
Lutheran  sense,  in  reference  to  the  state  of  humiliation. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  Brentian  school  saved  the  Lutheran 
theory  at  the  expense  of  historical  truth.  The  occult  use 
of  divine  majesty  yields  no  real  state  of  humiliation.  The 
later  representatives  of  this  school,  sensible  of  this,  sought 
to  remedy  the  defect  of  the  Brentian  doctrine  of  exinanition, 
by  the  usual  method  of  introducing  some  new  subtle  dis- 
tinctions. They  distinguished  between  direct  and  reflex  use 
of  majesty,*  and  asserted  abstinence  from  the  latter  in  the 
state  of  humiliation;  but  only  a  partial  abstinence,  in  con- 
nection, namely,  with  the  priestly  office.  Christ  as  a  high 
priest  made  no  personal  use  of  His  majesty,  while  at  the 
same  time  He  used  it  occultly  as  a  king.  Thus  the  later 
Tubingen  theory,  in  brief,  was:  exinanition  in  the  sacerdotal 
office  by  occultation  and  abstinence;  in  the  kingly  office, 

1  Thomasius  ii.  450.  2  Ibid.  ii.  450. 

3  Rid.  ii.  469. 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.  1 1 3 

by  occultation  alone.1  An  utterly  untenable  theory,  in- 
volving the  ascription  to  Christ  at  the  same  time,  and  with 
reference  to  the  same  nature,  of  two  series  of  contrary 
states.  As  a  king  He  was  omnipresent,  as  a  priest  He 
walked  on  earth  in  local  circumscription;  as  a  king  He 
reigned,  when  as  a  priest  He  suffered  on  the  cross;  as  a 
priest  He  truly  died  and  rose  again,  as  a  king  He  continued 
alive  in  an  occult  manner,  and  afterwards  manifested  Him- 
self alive  to  men.  Well  might  the  Giessen  theologians  ask, 
in  reference  to  this  theory:  Who  can  exhaust  the  sea  of 
absurdities  into  which  it  leads  ? 2  Good  right  had  they  to 
charge  the  advocates  of  such  a  theory  with  making  the 
earthly  life  of  the  Saviour  a  spectacle  of  simulated  servitude 
(spectaculum  simidatae  servitntis);  as  good  a  right,  indeed, 
as  their  opponents  had  to  charge  them  with  betraying  the 
cause  of  Lutheran  Christology.  Each  party  made  good  its 
accusation  against  its  rival;  and  the  result  of  the  Tiibingen- 
Geissen  controversy  was,  to  substantiate  the  statement 
that  the  Lutheran  theory,  consistently  worked  out,  leaves 
no  room  for  a  state  of  humiliation. 

4.  In  the  Lutheran  theory,  the  state  of  exinanition,  ad- 
mitted to  be  a  fact,  is  an  effect  without  a  cause.  The 
Gospels  tell  how  Christ  was  conceived  in  the  womb  of  the 
Virgin,  was  born,  grew  gradually  up  to  manhood,  was  in 
all  respects  found  in  fashion  as  a  man,  subject  to  all  sinless 
human  infirmities,  and  to  the  ordinary  conditions  of  human 
existence  on  earth.  All  these  things  the  theory  under 
consideration  recognises  as  historical  realities,  and  reckons 
to  the  state  of  exinanition;  but  it  is  unable  to  give  any 
satisfactory  account  of  them.  The  Incarnation  does  not 
account  for  them;  for  incarnation  in  the  Lutheran  Chris- 
tology signifies  simply  the  union  of  the  Logos  to  a  human- 
ity endowed  with  divine  attributes:  omnipotent,  omniscient, 
omnipresent,  and  as  omnipresent  possessing  no  locally  cir- 


1  Exinanitio  in  officio  sacerdotali,  per  occultationem  et  retractionem,  in  officio 
regio  per  solam  occultationem  facta  est.     Luc.  Osiander  in  Thomasius,  ii.  469. 

2  Thomasius,  ii.  482:  Ne  plura  dicenda  sint,  num  Christus  ut  sacerdo?  vere 
inortuus  est  et  vere  revixit,  ut  rex  autem  vivus  permansit  occulte  et  latenter,  et 
•postea  sese  vivum  hominibus  manifestavit.  Quis  tandem  exhauriat  tantum  mare 
absurditatum? 


114  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

cumscribed  existence.  Incarnation  and  exinanition  are  en- 
tirely distinct;  the  former  in  idea  precedes  the  latter,  and 
it  does  not  necessarily  involve  the  latter.  How,  then,  is 
the  state  of  exinanition  to  be  explained  ?  Must  we  con- 
ceive of  the  Incarnation  as  not  merely  in  idea  but  in  reality 
preceding;  and  of  the  state  of  exinanition,  including  the 
conception,  as  the  result  of  a  voluntary  act  of  self-humil- 
iation on  the  part  of  the  already  pre-existent  God- man  ? 
There  is  no  other  alternative  open,  if  the  historical  hu- 
manity of  Christ  is  not  to  be  left  standing  as  an  inexplicable 
riddle.  The  Lutheran  theologians  did  not  fairly  face  this 
great  difficulty  besetting  their  theory.  They  shrank  from 
asserting  the  real  existence  of  a  humanity  of  Christ,  prior 
to  the  humanity  which  commenced  with  the  conception; 
but,  in  so  doing,  they  simply  deprived  themselves  of  the 
only  possible  means  of  accounting  for  the  existence  of  the 
latter.1 

5.  Once  more,  the  Lutheran  Christology,  in  its  zeal  for 
the  deification  of  Christ's  humanity,  really  robs  us  of  the 
Incarnation.  If,  as  Lutheran  theologians  taught,  the  per- 
sonal union  necessarily  involves  the  communication  of 
divine  attributes  to  the  humanity,  then,  in  so  far  as  Christ's 
humanity  was  like  ours,  it  was  uninformed  with  Diety. 
Christ,  qua  real  man,  was  mere  man.  The  incarnate  God 
was  not  to  be  seen  in  Jesus  of  Nazareth;  He  was  an  airy, 
ghostly  personage,  as  invisible  as  God  Himself,  omnipresent 
after  an  illocal  manner,  intangible,  superior  to  all  human 
needs  and  infirmities,  immortal,  omniscient,  omnipotent. 
No  wonder  that  speculative  theologians  of  modern  times 
should  be  found  asserting  that  the  Lutheran  Christ  is  an 

1  Both  Dorner  and  Schneckenburger  agree  in  holding  that  a  real  God-manhood, 
pre-existent,  and  the  cause  of  the  humanity  whose  existence  began  with  the  con- 
ception, was  the  logical  consequence  of  the  Lutheran  theory.  Dorner,  however, 
ult  with  Schneckenburger  for  not  recognising  that,  in  point  of  fact,  the 
Lutheran  theologians  did  not  teach  such  a  pre-existent  humanity.  "The  actual 
doctrine,"  he  says,  "  of  the  old  dogmatics  is  one  thing,  the  conclusion  which  may 
be  drawn  from  it  another.  In  this  respect  we  have  also  conceded  that  the  most 
strictly  logical  form  of  Lutheran  Christology  must  be  driven  to  the  assumption  of  a 
pre-existent  majesty."  I  do  not  suppose  Schneckenburger  meant  to  say  anything 
more  than  this.  See  Dorner,  Person  of  Christ,  II.  ii.  292-297,  and  431-435.  And 
Schneckenburger,  zur  Kirchlichen  Christologie,  pp.  20,  21 ;  also  Vergleichttid- 
Darstellung,  ii.  208. 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.         n5 

ideal,  not  a  historical  person,1  and  imagining  themselves 
the  children  of  Luther,  and  the  true  representatives  of  his 
Christological  tendency,  when  they  teach  a  Pantheistic 
doctrine  in  which  Incarnation  means  the  eternal  identity  of 
the  divine  and  the  human  realizing  itself,  not  in  Christ  in 
particular,  but  in  humanity  at  large;  the  krypsis  being  the 
condition  of  the  finite  spirit,  which  in  its  earthly  mode  of  ex- 
istence is  no  longer  conscious  of  what  it  has  itself  produced, 
as  the  absolute  organizing  reason  of  the  world.  The  old 
Lutherans  were  not  Pantheists,  nor  did  they  look  on  the 
historical  Christ  as  an  ordinary  man;  but  their  Christology 
was  undoubtedly  of  such  a  character,  as  to  make  it  possi- 
ble for  modern  Pantheistic  Christologies  to  lay  claims  to 
orthodoxy  with  a  show  of  plausibility.3 


PART  II. — THE  REFORMED  CHRISTOLOGY. 

In  passing  from  the  Lutheran  to  the  Reformed  Christol- 
ogy, we  encounter  a  markedly  different  manner  of  regard- 
ing the  person  of  Christ.  The  two  Christologies  are 
distinguished  by  certain  broad  features,  recognisable  at  a 
glance.  While  the  Christology  of  the  Lutheran  Church 
emphasizes  the  majesty  of  Christ's  humanity,  that  of  the 
Reformed  confession  insists  on  its  reality.  The  very  titles 
of  the  treatises  which  emanated  from  the  two  schools  reveal 
their  respective  tendencies.  The  Lutheran  wrote,  con 
amore,  books  treating  of  the  divine  majesty  of  Christ;  *  the 
Reformed  chose  for  his  congenial  theme,  the  verity  of  the 
human  nature  of  Christ.4  The  whole  subject  in  dispute  was 
looked  at  by  the  adherents  of  the  two  confessions  from 
different   points   of  view.     The  Lutheran  formed  his  idea 

1  Vid.  Weisse,  Die  Christologie  Lut/zer's,  unci  die  Christologische  Aufgabt 
der  Evangelischen  Theologie,  p.  79  ff.,  also  p.  219. 

2  On  the  inner  relations  between  the  old  Lutheran  Christology  and  modern 
speculative  Christology,  some  striking  observations  are  made  by  Schneckenburgei 
in  his  Vergleichende  Darstellung.     See  Appendix,  Note  C. 

3  De  Divina  Majestate  Christi.  Brentz  and  Thummius  wrote  treatises  witl 
this  title. 

4  De  Verilate  humanae  naturae  Christi.     This  is  a  title  of  a  work  by  SadeeL 


1 1 6  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

of  Christ  from  the  state  of  exaltation,  as  the  abiding  form 
of  His  existence;  regarding  the  state  of  humiliation  aa 
something  transient,  accidental,  economical,  not  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  idea,  and  requiring  to  be  reconciled  with 
it  in  the  best  way  possible.  The  Reformed,  on  the  other 
hand,  formed  his  idea  of  Christ  from  the  state  of  humilia- 
tion, as  that  concerning  which  most  is  known,  and  which 
it  most  concerns  us  to  know,  and  which,  being  known,  pre- 
pares us  for  understanding  the  subsequent  state  of  exalta- 
tion. For  him  the  state  of  exinanition  was  not,  as  for  the 
Lutheran,  a  strange  perplexing  thing,  as  unaccountable  as 
it  was  undeniable;  but  rather  a  thing  of  course,  the  natural 
result  of  an  Incarnation  which  was  itself  an  act  of  divine 
condescension.  In  the  Reformed  view,  Incarnation  and  ex- 
inanition  were  practically  one.  It  was  not  denied,  indeed, 
that  the  two  things  are  distinguishable  in  idea,  even  that 
the  Incarnation  might  conceivably  have  taken  place  in  a 
manner  which  should  have  ushered  in  at  once  a  state  of 
exaltation;  '  but  it  was  held  that  the  idea  of  Incarnation 
did  not  demand  an  immediate  or  necessary  exaltation;  that 
it  was  compatible  with  either  state;  that  it  settled  nothing 
as  to  the  mode;  that  God  could  be  as  truly  incarnate  in  a 
state  of  humiliation  as  in  a  state  of  exaltation;  and  that  the 
end  of  the  Incarnation  being  kept  in  view,  the  way  of  hu- 
mility was  the  only  one  open.     From  these  points  of  differ- 

1  Heidegger,  e.  g.,  says:  In  nativitate  qua  coepit  esse  in  similitudine  hominis, 
imo  et  conceptione  ipsa,  licet  exinanitus  Christus  fuerit,  non  tamen  exinanitio 
proprie  in  kv6<Xf>Koo6Ei,  irayOpoomjdst,  incamatione  ejus  consistit.  Nam  sim- 
pliciter  hominem  fieri,  in  similitudine  hominis  esse,  non  est  exinaniri,  humiliari. 
Qui  exinaniri  debuit,  homo  esse  debuit;  sed  non  quisquis  homo  est,  exinaniri  debet. 
Nam  etiam  in  statu  exaltationis  mansit  homo;  neque  tamen  vel  exinanitus  vel 
humiliatus  amplius.  Et  exinanitus,  minoratus  est  oyo,  fipaxv  Ti,  paulisper,  ad 
breve  tempus.  Sed  homo  fuit  non  paulisper,  nee  ad  breve  tempus;  sed  inde  a 
nativitate  semper  fuit,  est,  et  erit.  Potuit  igitur  esse  homo,  et  non  exinaniri,  sed 
esse  i'<fa  fyecS,  instar  Dei.  Ideo  5.  Paulus,  Phil.  ii.  7,  eas  phrases  ytv£6riai  hv 
ojuotoojuart  <xvr)QQoitoov,  esse  in  similitudine  hominum,  et  juop(pi}v  dovXov 
Xafjslv,  6xvMaTl  evp/6xe6rjai  g5?  avBpoo7tov,  servi  formam  accipere,  habitu 
inveniri  ut  hominem,  diligenter  distinguit,  innuens  non  prius,  sed  duo  haec  poste? 
riora  exinanitionem  dicere  ...  In  eo  ergo  exinanitio  Christi  hominis  consistit, 
quod  non  simpliciter  homofactus;  sed  ejusmodi  homofactus  est,  utjuopepvv  dov- 
Xov habuerit,  et  6xV)J-Olxi  ut  homo  repertus  fuerit.  Corpus  Theologiae,  locus 
xviii.  cc.  iv.  v.  See  on  the  Reformed  doctrine  on  this  point,  Ebrard,  Dogmatik, 
ii.  208. 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.  117 

ence  it  followed,  of  course,  that  the  two  Christologies 
should  be  discriminated  in  two  other  respects,  viz.,  that 
while  the  Lutheran  was  speculative  in  tendency,  and  theo- 
logical in  its  general  character,  the  Reformed,  on  the  other 
hand,  was  under  the  influence  of  the  historical  spirit,  and 
of  an  anthropological  bias.  The  advocates  of  the  Lutheran 
theory  believed  many  things  about  Christ  which  were  not 
verifiable  or  historically  attested  truths,  but  simply  a  priori 
deductions  from  a  preconceived  idea  of  Christ's  person,  as 
constituted  by  the  union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures. 
The  Reformed  doctors,  on  the  contrary,  adhered  rigidly  to 
the  facts  of  the  gospel  history,  and  refused  to  draw  any 
speculative  inferences  from  the  doctrine  of  Incarnation. 
And  their  hearts  were  at  home  in  these  sober,  humble  facts. 
It  was  not  an  offence  to  them  that  in  Christ  the  man  was 
more  apparent  than  the  God,  that  behind  the  veil  of  flesh 
Deity  hid  itself.  They  accepted  the  occultation  as  an  unde- 
niable truth;  nay,  they  gloried  in  it.  For,  while  profoundly 
convinced  that  in  Christ  God  became  man,  they  were,  if 
possible,  more  intensely  interested  in  what  God  had  become, 
than  in  what  the  Incarnate  One  continued  to  be.  They 
made  much  of  Christ's  consubstantiality  with  men:  "  In  all 
things  like  His  brethren,  sin  excepted,"  was  their  watch- 
word; the  man  Christ  Jesus,  true  God,  yet  emphatically 
man,  was  their  hope  and  consolation. 

Among  the  Reformed  theologians  no  such  wide  diversity 
of  opinion  existed,  on  the  subject  of  Christ's  person,  as  are 
found  to  prevail  among  the  Lutherans.  The  Reformed 
Christology  is  a  self-consistent  scheme,  taught  with  much 
uniformity  by  all  the  theologians  of  the  Calvinistic  conles- 
sion;  the  only  difference  perceptible  consisting  in  the  more 
or  less  complete  working  out  of  common  principles.  We 
might  therefore  take  any  well-known  divine  as  our  guide  in 
the  exposition  of  this  theory.  It  will  be  best,  however,  to 
select,  as  the  type  and  standard  of  Reformed  opinion,  a 
work  written  at  the  period  when  the  antagonistic  theory 
took  definite  shape  in  an  ecclesiastical  symbol,  and  designed 
to  be  a  formal  reply  to  that  theory,  as  embodied  in  sym- 
bolic documents.  I  refer  to  a  treatise  I  have  already  had 
occasion  to  quote,  the  Admonitio  Christiana,  usually  desig- 


1 1 8  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

nated  from  the  place  where  it  was  first  published  in  1581, 
Admonitio  Ncostadticnsis,  in  which  the  views  of  the  Re- 
formed on  the  disputed  subjects  of  the  person  of  Christ 
and  the  presence  in  the  Supper  are  stated  and  defended,  in 
opposition  to  those  set  forth  in  the  Formula  of  Concord, 
in  a  full,  lucid,  learned,  and  dignified  manner.1 

In  this  important  work  the  Reformed  doctrine  concerning 
the  person  of  Christ  is  briefly  repeated  to  the  following 
effect.2  The  eternal  counsel  of  God  for  man's  salvation  de- 
manded that  the  eternal  Son  of  God  should  become  Media- 
tor and  victim,  reconciling  us  to  the  Father,  and  regenera- 
ting us  into  sons  of  God  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  Therefore  He 
assumed  into  the  unity  of  His  person  a  nature  truly  human, 
consisting  of  a  rational  soul  and  a  human  body,  formed  and 
sanctified  by  the  power  of  His  own  Spirit  in  the  womb  of 
the  Virgin,  of  the  substance  of  His  mother,  joining  and 
coupling  it  to  Himself  not  only  inseparably,  but  also  by  a 
secret  and  inscrutable  vinculum  in  a  most  intimate  and  in- 
effable manner,  so  that  the  eternal  Logos  or  Son  of  God, 
and  this  mass  of  the  nature  assumed,  are  at  the  same  time 
the  substance  of  the  one  person  of  Christ,  who,  one  and 
the  same,  is  true  Son  of  God  and  true  Son  of  man,  true  God 
and  true  man,  born  from  eternity  of  the  Father,  and  in  time 
of  the  Virgin.  In  virtue  of  this  union,  divinity  is  not  in 
Christ  as  in  all  creatures  for  their  conservation  and  govern- 
ment; nor  does  it  dwell  in  Him  as  in  saints,  making  them 
conformable  to  Himself  by  grace  and  His  own  Spirit,  but 
the  Logos  so  inhabits  and  bears,  moves  and  vivifies  this 
His  own  flesh,  that  with  it,  once  for  all  assumed  into  the 
unity  of  one  person  with  Himself,  He  remains  the  hypos- 
tasis of  one  and  the  same  person  of  Christ,  as  soul  and  body 
are  so  united  by  a  secret  inexplicable  nexus  that  they  are 
substantial  parts  of  one  man,  and  the  body  would  perish 
unless  it  were  so  borne  by  the  soul;  indeed,  the  Logos  co- 

1  The  full  title  of  this  book  is,  De  Libro  Concordiae  quern  vocant,  a  quibusdam 
Theologis,  nomine  qitorundam  Ordinum  Augustanae  Confessionis  ediio,  Admo- 
nitio Christiana,  scripta  et  approbata  a  Theologis  et  ministris  ecdesiarum  in 
ditione  illustrissimi  Principis  Iokannis  Casimiri  Palatini  ad  Rhenum  Bavariae 
Duds,  etc.  Zachary  Ursinus  was  the  principal  author  of  this  book,  and  it  is  in- 
cluded in  his  works  published  at  Heidelberg  in  three  vols,  in  1612. 

•  Caput  i.     De  persona  Christi,  verae  doctrinae  repetitio. 


jLutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.         119 

heres  with  His  flesh  more  closely  than  the  soul  with  the 
body,  so  that  even  when  His  soul  was  separated  from  His 
body  by  death,  He  was  not  separated  from  either.  On  the 
other  hand,  while  thus  closely  united,  the  natures  are  not 
changed  or  mixed  or  confused,  but  remain  distinct  while 
united,  and  retain  their  respective  essential  properties. 
Hence  in  the  one  person  there  is  a  twofold  substance,  es- 
sence, or  nature;  one  divine,  uncreated,  creating,  sustain- 
ing, and  vivifying  the  other,  spiritual,  uncircumscribed,  and 
always  existing  everywhere  the  same  and  whole;  the  other 
human,  created,  sustained,  and  vivified  by  the  former,  finite, 
corporeal,  circumscribed  by  quantity  and  definite  figures 
having  part  beyond  part,  and  existing  only  in  one  place  at 
one  time.  Also  a  twofold  mind  or  intellect;  one  divine 
and  increate,  knowing  all  things  past,  present,  future,  pos- 
sible, impossible,  from  eternity  to  eternity,  by  itself,  in  one 
unchangeable  act  or  intuition,  and  the  fountain  of  all  crea- 
turely  intelligence;  the  other  human,  created,  knowing  and 
contemplating  all  things  which  it  wishes  to  know,  and  when 
it  wishes,  through  the  divine  mind  united  to  it;  able  to  per- 
ceive all  sensible  things  by  diverse,  distinct  acts  of  sensa- 
tion and  perception.  Also  a  twofold  will  and  operation; 
the  one  divine  and  increate,  performing  whatever  it  wishes, 
volens  et  nolens,  from  eternity,  immutably  and  in  His  own 
time,  exciting  the  other  and  governing  it  at  pleasure,  as  a 
part  acting  on  another  part  of  the  one  entire  perfect  Christ, 
the  first  cause  of  all  His  actions;  the  other  human  and  cre- 
ated, ever  agreeing  with  the  divine,  depending  on  it,  will- 
ing and  doing  by  its  guidance  whatever  is  its  proper  func- 
tion. Also  a  twofold  wisdom,  strength,  and  virtue,  one 
divine,  increate,  being  the  unique,  total,  most  simple,  infin- 
ite, and  immutable  essence  of  Deity;  the  other,  human  and 
created  by  the  divine,  itself  neither  the  essence  of  Deity 
nor  of  humanity,  nor  even  a  thing  subsisting  by  itself,  but 
a  quality  and  property  produced  in  the  human  nature  by 
the  Logos  through  His  own  Spirit,  and  inhering  therein  as 
in  its  own  subject,  which  grew  in  Christ  humbled  with  His 
age,  and  in  Christ  glorified  arrived  at  perfection;  yet,  while 
surpassing  the  gifts,  comprehension,  and  intelligence  of  all 
men  and  angels,  is  nevertheless  finite  in  the  divine  view. 


120  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

and  can  never  be  equal  to  the  essential  wisdom,  power, 
and  virtue  of  God;  the  finite  to  the  infinite,  the  creature  to 
the  creator. 

In  virtue  of  this  union,  whatever  is  said  of  Christ  is  said 
truly  and  really  of  His  whole  undivided  person,  sometimes 
in  respect  of  both  natures,  sometimes  in  respect  of  one  or 
other.  The  former,  when  the  predicate  has  reference  to 
Christ's  office;  He  being  Mediator,  Redeemer,  Intercessor, 
King,  Priest,  Prophet,  in  respect  both  to  His  Deity  and  tc 
His.  humanity,  and  each  nature  performing  its  proper  part 
in  all  official  acts;  the  latter,  when  the  predicate  has  refer- 
ence to  a  peculiar  property  or  operation  of  one  of  the  na- 
tures. Thus  it  can  be  said  that  God  was  born,  died,  rose, 
ascended,  but  only  in  respect  to  the  human  nature  of  Christ; 
and  again,  that  the  man  Christ  Jesus  is  omnipotent,  om- 
niscient, omnipresent,  in  virtue,  not  of  His  humanity,  but 
of  His  divinity.  Yet  in  both  cases  the  predication  is  not 
merely  verbal,  but  real,  in  consequence  of  the  union.  It  is 
the  union  which  makes  it  proper  to  say,  in  the  case  of  Christ, 
God  suffered,  the  man  Jesus  is  omniscient;  while  it  would 
be  improper  to  say,  in  the  case  of  the  Baptist,  God  suffered 
because  he  suffered,  or  the  Baptist  was  omnipresent  because 
God  dwelt  within  him  as  well  as  without  him. 

As  to  the  distinction  between  the  two  states  of  humilia- 
tion and  exaltation,  it  has  a  bearing  on  the  properties  of 
both  natures,  but  in  very  different  ways.  With  reference 
to  the  properties  of  the  divine  nature,  it  is  a  distinction 
simply  between  partial  concealment  and  open  manifesta- 
tion. Christ  in  the  state  of  humiliation  had  these  proper- 
ties not  less  than  He  has  them  now  in  glory;  for  they  are 
His  eternal  and  immutable  divinity  itself.  He  was  then  as 
omniscient,  omnipotent,  and  omnipresent,  as  to  His  divini- 
ty, as  now.  But  He  did  not  manifest  these  properties  then 
as  now.  He  concealed  His  divinity  in  the  state  of  exina- 
nition,  and  revealed  it  only  in  a  modified  manner,  and  so 
far  as  was  needful  for  the  office  of  that  time.  With  refer- 
ence to  the  properties  of  the  human  nature,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  distinction  between  the  states  is  more  radical, 
implying  for  the  state  of  exaltation  the  loss  of  some  acci- 
dental properties  possessed  in  the  state  of  humiliation,  the 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.         121 

perfected  development  of  others,  and  the  retention  of  the 
essential  properties.  The  accidental  properties  left  behind 
by  Christ,  when  He  entered  into  glory,  are  the  physical 
and  mental  infirmities  which  He  assumed  with  humanity — 
liability  to  hunger,  thirst,  fatigue,  grief,  suffering,  death, 
and  ignorance.  The  properties  in  which  He  was  perfected, 
also  accidental,  that  is,  not  inseparable  from  the  idea  of 
human  nature,  are  those  of  glory  and  majesty,  as  strength, 
agility,  incorruptibility,  brightness,  wisdom,  gladness,  vir- 
tue. These  Christ  had  in  the  state  of  humiliation,  as  far 
as  was  needful  for  His  perfect  purity  and  sanctity,  and  for 
the  discharge  of  His  office  on  earth;  but  in  the  state  of  ex- 
altation He  received  such  increase  thereof,  that,  in  the 
number  and  degree  of  His  gifts,  He  far  excels  not  only  the 
highest  excellence  of  angels  and  men,  but  even  His  own 
attainments  in  the  days  of  His  flesh. 

I.  In  the  foregoing  condensed  statement,  the  leading  pe- 
culiarities of  the  Reformed  Christology,  as  opposed  to  the 
Lutheran,  are  clearly  though  briefly  indicated.  The  first 
outstanding  point  calling  for  remark  is  the  idea  of  the  union. 
The  Lutherans  were  accustomed  to  say  that,  according  to 
the  Reformed  conception  of  the  union,  the  two  natures 
were  simply  glued  together  like  two  boards,  without  any 
real  communion.  It  must  be  confessed  that,  at  first  sight, 
the  Reformed  theory  of  the  person  of  Christ  does  give  this 
impression.  The  two  natures  stand  out  so  distinctly,  as  to 
seem  two  altogether  separate  things,  tied  together  by  the 
slender  thread  of  the  divine  Ego.  From  the  nature  of  the 
case,  the  tendency  on  the  side  of  those  who  opposed  the 
Lutheran  doctrine  of  communication  was,  to  carry  the  as- 
sertion of  the  distinctness  of  natures  as  far  as  was  compati- 
ble with  recognition  of  the  unity  of  the  person.  This  ten- 
dency is  apparent  in  the  strong,  bold  assertion  by  the 
author  of  the  Advwnitio  of a  gemina  substantia,  gemina  mens, 
gemina  sapientia  robnr  et  virtus;  its  influence  is  traceable 
also  in  the  language  they  employ  to  describe  the  act  of 
union,  the  Son  of  God  being  represented  as  joining  and 
coupling  the  human  naiure  to  Himself  by  a  secret  and  in- 
scrutable vinculum.  This  outwardness  in  the  Reformed 
mode  of  conceiving  the  union  became  still  more  marked  as 


122  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

time  went  on.  Van  Mastricht,  for  example,  explains  the 
nature  of  the  hypostatic  union  in  these  terms:  "  It  is  noth- 
ing else  than  a  certain  ineffable  relation  of  the  divine  per- 
son (in  Christ)  to  the  human  nature,  by  which  this  human 
nature  is  peculiarly  the  human  nature  of  the  second  person 
of  the  Deity."1  In  this  rather  vague  and  unsatisfactory  ex- 
planation, which  in  truth  explains  nothing,  there  comes 
out,  by  the  way,  another  characteristic  of  the  Reformed 
style  of  thought,  due  to  the  same  tendency  to  keep  as  far 
apart  as  possible  the  two  natures  in  Christ.  Van  Mastricht 
speaks  of  a  certain  ineffable  relation  of  the  divine  person  to 
the  human  nature;  herein  following  the  example  of  Aqui- 
nas, who,  as  we  have  seen,2  taught  that  in  the  Incarnation, 
not  the  divine  nature,  but  the  person  only  of  the  Logos  be- 
came man.  The  preference  of  this  mode  of  conceiving  the 
Incarnation,  though  common  among  the  Reformed  theo- 
logians, is  not  clearly  marked  in  the  Admonitio. 

2.  The  authors  of  that  historical  document  were,  indeed, 
very  far  from  wishing  to  make  the  union  of  the  natures  a 
merely  nominal  and  formal  thing.  They  earnestly  believed 
in  a  communion  of  the  natures,  and  did  what  they  could  to 
»nake  that  communion  a  reality.  The  means  they  adopted 
lor  that  end  are  the  second  point  which  invites  our  atten- 
<ion.  These  were,  on  the  one  hand,  the  ascription  to 
vhe  Son  of  God,  in  virtue  of  the  personal  union,  of  partici- 
pation in  the  sufferings  of  His  humanity;  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  doctrine  adopted  from  Aquinas,  of  the  communi- 
cation of  charisms  to  the  human  nature,  fitting  it  to  be  the 
companion,  so  to  speak,  and  organ  of  Deity.  Both  of  these 
media  of  communion  are  briefly  hinted  at  in  the  Repetition 
and  enlarged  on  in  subsequent  parts  of  the  Admonitio. 
God,  it  is  stated,  is  truly  said  to  suffer,  because  the  suffering 
humanity  is  the  proper  humanity  of  God.  More  light  is 
thrown  on  the  point  further  on  in  the  book,  where,  in  reply 
to  the  Lutheran  charge  of  teaching  that  in  the  passion  of 
Christ  the  Son  of  God  had  no  concern,  reference  is  made 

1  Theologia  theorelico-practica,  lib.  v.  cap.  iv.  sec.  vii.:  Ineffabilis  quaedam 
relatio  divinae  personae  ad  humanam  naturam,  per  quam  haec  humana  natura 
peculiariter  est  humana  natura  secundae  personae  Deitatis. 

2  Vid.  Lecture  ii.  p.  73. 


Lutheran  a?id  Rcf owned  Christologies.  123 

to  the  exclamation  of  the  exalted  Saviour,  "  Saul,  Saul, 
why  persecutest  thou  me  ! "  and  an  argument  a  fortiori  is 
drawn  from  the  suffering  by  sympathy  implied  in  the 
words,  to  a  still  more  real  participation  in  His  own  suffer- 
ing.1 The  part  performed  by  the  divine  nature  in  the 
passion  is  more  exactly  defined  elsewhere  thus:  "  The 
human  nature  suffers  and  dies  innocently,  and  becomes  a 
victim  for  sin,  willing  this  obedience;  the  divine  nature 
also  wills  this  obedience,  and  conceals  its  power  and 
glory,  not  repelling  from  the  human  nature  death  and 
ignominy,  yet  sustains  that  nature  in  torment,  seriously 
desires  that  the  eternal  Father  may  receive  us  into  His 
favour  on  account  of  this  victim,  and  adds  such  dignity  to 
the  victim  which  He  offers  to  the  Father,  that  it  is  a  suffi- 
cient ransom  and  price  for  the  sins  of  the  whole  world."2 
These  determinations  go  a  certain  length  in  helping  us  to 
understand  the  mystery  of  divine  suffering,  but  perhaps 
the  hint  at  suffering  by  sympathy  is  of  more  value  than 
them  all.  It  reminds  us  of  a  truth  we  are  apt  to  lose  sight 
of  in  our  abstruse  discussions,  viz.  that  the  divine  and 
human  natures,  though  metaphysically  wide  apart,  are 
morally  of  kin,  and  that  therefore,  though  the  Divine 
Spirit  cannot,  as  indeed  the  human  spirit  also  cannot, 
suffer  physical  pain,  it  can  suffer  all  that  holy  love  is  capa- 
ble of  enduring.  The  infinite  mind  can  suffer  in  the  same 
way  as  the  sinless  finite  mind;  it  can  have  sorrow  in 
common  with  the  latter,  as  well  as  wisdom,  knowledge, 
and  virtue;  and  if  there  be  any  difference  between  divine 
and  human  sorrow,  it  is  a  difference  of  the  same  kind  as 
that  which  obtains  with  reference  to  the  last-named  attri- 
butes. The  authors  of  the  Admonitio  recognise  the  truth 
that  in  some  attributes  Deity  and  humanity  stand  related 
as  archetype  and  image,  wisdom  and  virtue  being  included 
among  the  number;  and  with  reference  to  those  attributes, 
it  makes  the  distinction  of  natures  one  mainly  of  degree, 
divine  wisdom  and  virtue  being  infinite,  while  human 
wisdom  and  virtue,  however  great,  are  limited.  Is  it  a 
heresy  to  include  among  the  common  attributes  of  Deity 

1  Admonitio,  caput  iii.  (Dilutio  accusationis  falsae)  sec.  vi. 
8  Ibid.  sec.  v. 


124  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

and  humanity  a  capacity  of  sorrow  on  account  of  sin, 
and  to  say  that  Deity  differs  from  humanity  only  in  posses- 
sing an  infinitely  greater  capacity  ?  If  so,  then  what  does 
Scripture  mean  when  it  speaks  of  the  Divine  Spirit  being 
vexed  and  grieved  ?  what  are  we  to  understand  by  Paul's 
rapturous  language  about  the  height  and  depth,  and  length 
and  breadth  of  divine  love  ? 

On  the  communication  of  cliarisms  to  the  humanity  of 
Christ,  the  Reformed  theologians  laid  great  stress;  it  was 
their  equivalent  or  substitute  for  the  Lutheran  communica- 
tion of  divine  properties,  and  they  carried  it  as  far  as  the 
axiom  finitum  non  capax  infiniti  would  permit.  The  au- 
thors of  the  Admonitio  had  this  doctrine  in  view,  when  in 
their  repetition  they  spoke  of  the  wisdom  and  virtue  of  the 
humanity  of  Christ,  as  qualities  wrought  in  that  nature  by 
the  Logos  through  His  Spirit.  In  answering  the  Lutheran 
charge  of  degrading  the  hypostatic  union  into  a  mere  con- 
glutination, they  return  to  the  topic  and  enter  a  little  more 
into  detail.  "  Divinity,"  they  say,  "  communicated  to  the 
humanity  this  highest  dignity,  that  it  is  the  flesh  of  the 
Son  of  God;  He  conferred  on  it  all  celestial  gifts  which  can 
be  bestowed  on  human  nature  in  the  highest  degree;  He 
communicated  to  it  fellowship  in  the  office  of  Mediator, 
Head  of  the  Church,  Governor  and  Judge  of  the  whole 
world.  He  communicated  to  it  fellowship  in  one  honour  and 
adoration  with  the  Logos."1 

It  is  easy  to  see  what  attractions,  beyond  the  merely 
controversial  advantage  of  enabling  them  to  defend  them- 
selves against  the  invidious  accusations  of  their  opponents, 
this  doctrine  must  have  had  for  theologians  of  the  Reformed 
tendency.  One  leading  recommendation  of  it  was,  that  in 
representing  the  man  Jesus  as  the  recipient  of  communi- 
cated gifts  and  graces,  it  helped  to  extend  and  establish 
the  highly  valued  doctrine  of  the  Jiomoiisia,  the  practically 
precious  truth  that  Christ  was  in  all  respects  like  unto  His 
brethren;  the  Head  of  the  Church  like  the  members.  Like 
them  in  the  constituent  elements  of  His  human  nature,  in 
subjection  to  sinless  infirmities,  in  exposure  to  temptation, 
He  was  like  them  further  even  in  this,  that  He  was  fitted 

1  Caput  iii.  sec.  ii. 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.         [25 

for  the  duties  of  His  office  by  the  influences  of  the  Holy 
Spirit;  unlike  only  in  the  degree  in  which  these  influences 
were  vouchsafed,  the  Spirit  being  poured  out  on  Him  alone 
without  measure.  Looked  at  from  this  point  of  view,  the 
communication  of  charisms  is  undoubtedly  a  doctrine  of 
real  importance;  and  by  giving  it  prominence  in  their 
Christological  scheme,  the  Reformed  theologians  did  good 
service  to  the  Church.  But,  while  of  undoubted  religious 
value,  this  doctrine  is  somewhat  embarrassing  theoretically, 
inasmuch  as  it  seems  difficult  to  adjust  its  relations  to  the 
personal  union.  The  questions  occur:  Why  should  not  the 
graces  with  which  the  soul  of  Jesus  was  enriched  be  the 
direct  result  of  the  union  of  the  Logos  to  the  humanity; 
why  this  roundabout  way  of  communicating  spiritual  gifts 
through  the  Holy  Ghost;  does  not  this  form  of  representa- 
tion tend  to  make  the  union  of  the  natures  still  more 
external — in  fact,  to  make  the  divine  factor  in  the  union 
superfluous,  and  so  land  us  in  a  purely  human  personality? 
In  connection  with  these  questions  it  is  important  to  notice 
the  way  in  which  the  Admonitio  puts  the  matter.  It  speaks 
of  the  wisdom  and  virtue  of  the  man  Jesus  as  a  quality 
wrought  in  His  human  nature  by  the  Logos  through  His  own 
spirit.  This  phrase,  "by  the  Logos  through  His  own 
spirit,"  unites  two  points  of  view  which  were  often  disjoined 
by  Reformed  theologians,  some  preferring  the  one,  some 
the  other;  and  suggests  a  method  of  dovetailing  the  doc- 
trine of  the  communication  of  charisms  into  the  doctrine 
of  the  personal  union.  The  spirit,  whose  gracious  influ- 
ences were  poured  into  the  soul  of  Christ,  was  the  spirit 
proceeding  from  the  Logos,  His  own  spirit  communicated 
freely  by  Himself;  and  the  doctrine  that  the  Logos  worked 
on  the  humanity  of  Christ  through  His  spirit,  may  be  taken 
to  mean  that  the  influence  of  the  Logos  on  the  human 
nature  was  not  physical  but  moral,  not  the  immediate  and 
necessary  effect  of  the  union  of  natures,  but  the  free,  ethi- 
cally mediated  action  of  the  one  on  the  other.1     This  is  a 

'  So  Schneckenburger,  Vergleichende  Darslellung,  ii.  239,  240:  So  wenig  war 
die  unio  personalis  una  der  darin  gesetzte  Einfluss  des  Logos  auf  die  menschliche 
Seele  eine  die  natttrliche  stindlose  Schwache  auf hebende  Gewalt  wider  deren  Ent- 
wickelung  und  Lebensverlauf  als  einen  wahrhaft  menschlichen  (that,  according  tc 


126  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

principle  of  great  importance  in  its  bearing  both  on  the 
nature  of  the  union  and  on  the  course  of  Christ's  human 
life  on  earth. 

3.  A  third  prominent  feature  in  the  Reformed  Christology 
is  its  doctrine  of  exinanition.  Unlike  the  Lutherans,  the 
Reformed  theologians  applied  the  category  of  exinanition 
to  the  divine  nature  of  Christ.  It  was  the  Son  of  God  who 
emptied  Himself,  and  He  did  this  in  becoming  man.  The 
Incarnation  itself,  in  the  actual  form  in  which  it  took  place, 
was  a  kenosis  for  Him  who  was  in  the  form  of  God  before 
He  took  the  form  of  a  servant.  But  the  kenosis  or  ex- 
inanitio  was  only  quasi,  an  emptying  as  to  use  and  mani- 
festation, not  as  to  possession,  a  hiding  of  divine  glory  and 
of  divine  attributes,  not  a  self-denudation  with  respect  to 
these.  The  standing  phrase  for  the  kenosis  was  occultatio, 
and  the  favourite  illustration  the  obscuration  of  the  sun  by 
a  dense  cloud.  Zanchius,  for  example,  says:  "Under  the 
form  of  a  servant  the  form  of  God  was  so  hid  that  it  scarcely 
appeared  any  longer  to  exist,  as  is  also  the  light  of  the  sun 
when  it  is  covered  by  a  very  dense  cloud;  for  who  would 
not  then  say  that  the  sun  had  laid  aside  all  his  light,  and 
denuded  himself  of  his  splendour  ?  "  l  But  the  question 
here  suggests  itself,  How  is  this  occidtation  to  be  understood  ? 
Does  it  signify  merely  that  the  manifestation  of  the  divine 
attributes  of  the  Logos  was  hid  from  the  view  of  the  world, 
or  does  it  mean  that  there  was  also  a  suspension  of  their 
exercise  for  Christ  Himself;  in  such  a  way,  for  example,  that 
the  omniscience  of  the  Logos  was  practically  non-existent 
for  the  man,  not  intruding  itself  into  His  human  conscious- 
ness ?  On  this  topic  the  Reformed  theologians  were  very 
reserved,  insomuch  that  Schneckenburger,  who  was  well 
acquainted  with  the  literature  of  the  subject,  expresses 
himself  doubtfully  as  to  the  import  of  the  gemina  mens. 

Calvin  and  Hulsius,  Christ  could  even  forget  in  a  moment  of  mental  anxiety  what 
He  previously  knew).  Schneckenburger  continues:  Die  influentia  war  nicht  phys- 
ica,  sondern  moralis,  quae  a  voluntate  pendet.  Die  voluntas  des  Logos  war  aber 
die,  der  rein  menschlichen  Lebensentwickelung  und  Lebensbethatigung  Raum  zu 
geben.  (The  influence  was  not  physical  but  moral,  depending  on  the  will-  but 
the  will  of  the  Logos  was  to  give  room  for  a  purely  human  development  and 
activity.) 

1  De  Incarnatione,  lib.  i.  p.  34. 


Lutheran  a?id  Refowicd  Christologies.         1 2  7 

As  I  shall  have  occasion  to  refer  to  the  views  of  this 
scholar  in  the  next  lecture,  in  enumerating  the  various 
attempts  which  have  been  made  in  recent  times  to  reconcile 
the  divinity  of  Christ  with  the  reality  of  His  human  life  as 
unfolded  in  the  gospel  history,  I  may  here  quote  what  he 
says  on  the  point.  "  It  is  very  questionable,"  he  remarks, 
41  whether  according  to  the  logic  of  the  (Reformed)  the- 
ory the  time-conditioned  consciousness  of  the  God-man  and 
the  eternal  self-consciousness  of  the  second  person  of  the 
Trinity  are  required  to  meet  in  the  divine-human  subject, 
developing  Himself  in  time.  The  matter  probably  stands 
thus:  That  instead  of  the  Lutheran  division  of  the  human 
nature  into  its  illocal  and  local  subsistence,  a  distinction  is 
to  be  made  in  the  life  of  the  divine,  according  to  which  the 
mens  duplex  is  to  be  distributed  between  the  Logos,  as  a 
person  of  the  Trinity,  and  the  concrete  God-man  in  so 
far  as  that  person  reveals  and  develops  Himself  in  Jesus 
after  a  human  fashion,  that  is,  as  a  human  individual.  The 
Logos  totus  extra  Jesum  is  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity 
as  such,  with  the  scientia  personalis;  the  Logos  totus  in  Jesu 
is  the  same  all-pervading  and  animating  divine  hypostasis, 
as  the  life  principle  of  this  individual,  the  God-man,  whose 
individual  consciousness  is  not  absolutely  all-embracing."  * 
According  to  this  view  the  Logos  had  a  double  life,  one  un- 
affected by  the  Incarnation,  another  in  the  man  Christ 
Jesus,  in  which  His  action  is  so  self-controlled  as  to  leave 
room  for  a  natural  human  development  involving  growth  in 
stature,  wisdom,  and  grace.  Traces  of  such  a  view  maybe 
found  in  Reformed  authors,  in  reference  to  divine  power. 
Zanchius  speaks  of  the  kenosis  as  involving  not  merely  an 


'  Vom  doppelten  Stande  Christi.  To  the  same  effect  in  VergleichendeDarstel- 
iung,  ii.  p.  198,  in  disposing  of  three  objections  brought  against  Reformed  Chris- 
tology  by  modern  writers:  that  it  allows  the  dualism  of  the  two  natures  to  remain 
unresolved,  that  it  posits  a  double  series  of  parallel  states  of  consciousness  in  the 
God-man,  and  that  its  doctrinal  point  of  view  is  purely  traditional.  To  the  last 
Schneckenburger  replies  by  pointing  to  the  communication  of  charisms,  and  the 
action  of  the  Holy  Ghost  as  the  bond  of  union  as  fresh  contributions  to  the  doc- 
trine; to  the  first,  by  admitting  the  charge  as  inevitable;  to  the  second,  by  repeat- 
ing  the  view  given  in  the  above  extract,  assigning  the  scientia  personalis  to  the 
Logos  per  se,  and  the  scientia  habitualis  to  the  Logos  incarnate,  or  to  Jesus  in 
whom  the  Logos  became  incarnate. 


128  The  Humiliation  of  CJirist. 

occultation  of  divine  glory,  but  a  withholding  of  divine 
omnipotence  in  Christ,  supporting  his  view  by  a  reference 
to  the  Ambrosian  doctrine  of  retraction  and  Heidegger 
and  Mastricht  combine  the  idea  of  restraining  or  withdraw- 
ing with  that  of  concealing,  in  their  representation  of  the 
effect  of  the  Incarnation  on  Christ's  glory.2  That  no  such 
statements  occur  in  reference  to  omniscience,  may  be  due 
to  the  felt  difficulty  of  conceiving  the  application  of  the 
idea  expressed  by  retentio  to  that  attribute.  Silence  must 
not  therefore  be  construed  into  a  denial  of  its  applicability. 
Rather  ought  regard  to  be  had  to  other  elements  in  the 
Reformed  theory  which  seem  to  demand  exclusion  of 
omniscience  from  the  consciousness  of  the  man  Christ 
Jesus.  Such  an  element  is  the  ignorance  which  the  leading 
Reformed  authorities  do  not  hesitate  to  ascribe  to  Christ 
on  earth.  That  ignorance  they  regard  as  real,  not,  like 
Cyril,  apparent  only  or  feigned.  But  how  can  it  be  real  if 
the  gemina  mens  means  two  series  of  parallel  states  of  con- 
sciousness ?  It  is  as  hard  to  conceive  of  two  such  series 
keeping  apart  and  having  no  communication  with  each 
other,  as  to  conceive  of  two  rivers  flowing  in  the  same 
channel  without  mixing  their  waters.  Yet  keep  apart  they 
must,  if  the  ignorance  is  to  be  real,  and,  it  may  be  added, 
if  the  Reformed  theory  is  to  be  consistent  with  itself  in 
opposing  the  communication  of  attributes  taught  by  the 
Lutherans.  For  if  the  divine  consciousness  is  to  run  into 
the  human,  so  that  the  supposed  ignorance  of  Christ  shall 
simply  mean  that  the  knowledge  He  possessed  in  a  partic- 
ular case  did  not  come  to  Him  through  His  human  nature, 
what  is  this  but  the  Lutheran  communication — omniscience 
communicated  to  the  soul  of  Christ  in  virtue  of  its  personal 

1  De  Incarnatione,  lib.  i.  p.  35:  Ergo  retentio  suae  virtutis  et  omnipotentiae  in 
ilia  came  xevcotfiS  et  exinanitio  appellatur,  et  ideo  ait  Ambrosius  quod  Aoyos  in 
carne  potentiam  suam  et  majestatem  ab  opere  retraxit.  The  retentio,  however, 
was  not  absolute.  Deitas  in  ilia  carne  non  statim,  non  semper,  non  Li  omnibus, 
non  abunde  sese  exeruit,  sed  quasi  otiosa  mansit.    This  otiositas  was  the  hsvgo6iS. 

-P.  36- 

!  Heidegger,  Corpus  Theologiae  Chrisztanae,  loc.  xviii. ,  De  Statu  Jesu  Christi: 
"gloriam  suam  .  .  .  ad  tempus  occultavit,  et  cohibnit."  Mastricht  associates  the 
word  subducere  with  the  verb  occidtare.  Theol.  Theoret.  Pract.  lib.  v.  cap.  ix. 
Pars  exeget. 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.         129 

union  with  the  Logos.  On  the  whole,  then,  having  regard 
to  the  ascription  by  the  Reformed  to  Christ  of  real  ignor- 
ance in  childhood  and  even  in  manhood,  to  their  concep- 
tion of  the  union  as  mediated  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  to 
their  determined  antagonism  to  the  Lutheran  communica- 
tion, and  to  their  well-known  formula:  "  The  whole  Logos 
beyond  Jesus,  the  whole  Logos  in  Jesus," — there  does  seem 
reason  to  think  that  the  distinguished  modern  theologian 
just  quoted  has  correctly  interpreted  the  bearing  of  the 
Reformed  theory  on  the  point  in  question.1  The  concep- 
tion of  a  dotible  life  of  the  Logos  is  certainly  a  difficult  one; 
to  some  it  may  even  seem  absurd  or  impossible.  Yet  the 
idea  has  commended  itself  to  men  distinguished  both  for 
their  ability  and  for  their  theological  independence,  includ- 
ing a  well-known  and  highly  esteemed  English  essayist, 
who,  in  grappling  with  the  problem  of  the  reconciliation  of 
Christ's  divinity  with  the  reality  of  His  humanity,  says:  "  If 
there  be  an  indestructible  moral  individuality  which  con- 
stitutes self,  which  is  the  same  when  wielding  the  largest 
powers  and  when  it  sits  alone  at  the  dark  centre, — which 
for  anything  I  know  may  even  live  under  a  double  set  of  con- 
ditions at  the  same  time, — I  can  see  no  metaphysical 
contradiction  in  the  Incarnation."  2 

4.  The  last  outstanding  feature  of  the  Reformed  Chris- 
tology  remaining  to  be  noticed,  is  the  emphasis  with  which 
it  asserts  the  likeness  of  Christ's  humanity  in  all  respects, 
sin  excepted,  to  that  of  other  men.  Zeal  for  this  truth, 
Schneckenburger  justly  remarks,  is  the  distinctively  Re- 
formed interest  in  Christology.*  Not  merely  on  theoretical 
but  on  religious  grounds,  the  upholders  of  the  Reformed 
theory  of  Christ's  person  were  determined  that  the  Saviour 
should  be  a  true  Son  of  man,  our  Brother  and  Head;  and 
hence  "  a  decided  antidoketic  realism  "  pervades  their  whole 
method  of  treating  Christological  subjects.4     The  influence 

1  Schweitzer  (Die  Glaubenslehre  des  Evangelischen  Reformirten  Kirche  Dar- 
kest ellt  und  aits  der  Quellen  belegt)  takes  the  same  view  as  Schneckenburger;  vid. 
Appendix,  Note  D. 

2  Essays  Theological  and  Literary,  by  R.  H.  Hutton,  vol.  i.  p.  260. 

3  Vergleichen.de  Darstellung,  ii.  p.  229, 

*  Vergleichende  Darstellung,  ii.  p.  229:  Der  entschiedenste  antidoketische  Re 
alismus  beseelt  die  reformirte  Betrachtungsweise. 


130  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

of  this  motive  is  apparent  in  all  the  features  of  their  system 
of  thought  already  referred  to,  as  well  as  in  other  peculiar- 
ities not  yet  mentioned;  as,  e.g.,  the  representation  of  Christ, 
as  man,  as  the  subject  of  predestination,  and  as  personally 
bound  to  obedience,  and  the  analogy  drawn  between  the 
Incarnation  and  regeneration,  the  union  of  the  natures  in 
Christ,  and  the  mystical  union  of  the  believer  to  Christ, 
both  being  accomplished  by  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
It  may  be  observed,  however,  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
Jiomoiisia  was  not  by  any  means  so  fully  worked  out  in  the 
early  period  as  it  came  to  be  afterwards  in  the  course  of 
the  17th  century.  Some  of  the  Reformed  divines  who  lived 
near  the  time  of  the  Reformation  seem  to  have  been  half 
unconscious  of  the  genius  and  tendency  of  their  own  theory, 
their  views  being  by  no  means  self-consistent  or  homoge- 
neous. This  remark  applies  very  specially  to  Zanchius,  who 
while  teaching  the  Reformed  doctrine  concerning  Christ'a 
person  in  opposition  to  the  Lutheran,  nevertheless  adopted 
almost  in  their  entirety  the  views  of  Aquinas  concerning  the 
knowledge  of  Christ's  soul  and  other  topics;  so  making 
Christ's  humanity  every  whit  as  unreal  as  it  was  in  the 
Brentian  system.  The  soul  of  Jesus,  we  are  told,  possessed 
in  perfection  from  the  first  the  vision  of  all  things  in  God. 
Possessing  this,  it  did  not  and  could  not  possess  faith  as 
the  evidence  of  things  not  seen,  nor  hope  which  rests  on 
faith;  for  what  a  man  sees  he  doth  not  hope  for.  That  is 
to  say,  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  while  represented  as  the 
recipient  of  all  manner  of  gifts  and  graces,  is  yet  declared 
to  have  been  rendered  by  the  hypostatic  union  incapable 
of  exercising  two  of  the  cardinal  graces — incapable  of 
brotherhood  with  us  in  the  faith  which  says:  "  I  will  put 
my  trust  in  Him,"  and  in  the  hope  which  cheers  the  soul 
under  present  tribulation, — being  a  comprchensor  even  while 
a  viator,  and  therefore  a  pilgrim  and  a  stranger  on  the 
earth  only  in  outward  guise  !  1     How  widely  different  from 

1  De  Incarnatione,  lib.  ii.  quaestiones  viii.  xi.  Le  Blanc  {Post/nima  opuccula, 
cap.  iii.  p.  191)  adverts  to  the  different  opinions  among  the  Reformed  de  Scientia 
Animae  Christi,  and  gives  an  account  of  those  held  by  Zanchius  in  particular  as 
peculiar  to  him  and  a  few  others.  He  underestimates  the  importance  of  the  ques- 
tion when  he  calls  it  merely  scholastic:   "  Quaestiones  sunt  mere  scholasticae. " 


Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.  131 

these  views  those  taught  a  century  later  by  Hulsius,  who 
represented  Christ  as  like  us  in  all  respects  save  sin,  and 
therefore  in  imperfection  of  knowledge  which  is  not  neces- 
sarily sinful;  declared  the  happiness  of  Christ  on  earth  to 
have  been  imperfect  not  less  than  His  knowledge — being 
the  felicity  of  one  who  was  only  a  wayfarer  to  the  blessed 
country  {viator),  not  that  of  one  who  has  arrived  at  the  end 
of  his  journey,  and  at  last  attained  possession  of  the  object 
of  his  hope  (eompre/iensor);  nay,  not  even  the  felicity  of 
Adam  in  paradise,  such  felicity  being  incompatible  with 
His  mediatorial  office,  which  required  Him  to  bear  the 
guilt  and  to  taste  the  misery  of  sinners.  This  Dutch  divine, 
according  to  the  account  given  of  his  views  by  Schnecken- 
burger,  held  that  Christ's  work  as  Saviour  demanded  that 
both  His  ignorance  and  His  unhappiness  should  be  most 
real,  and  he  protested  against  any  inferences  being  drawn 
from  the  hypostatic  union  prejudicial  to  their  reality.  The 
union  must  be  so  conceived  of  as  to  allow  full  validity  to 
the  "  form  of  a  servant."  The  prayer,  "  let  this  cup  pass," 
and  the  natural  fear  out  of  which  it  sprang,  must  not  be 
rendered  a  theatrical  display  by  the  overpowering  physical 
influence  of  the  divine  nature  upon  the  human.  Rather 
than  admit  the  agony  and  the  fear  in  the  garden  to  have 
been  unreal,  one  may  dare  to  say  that,  under  the  influence 
of  extreme  perturbation  of  mind,  Christ  for  the  moment 
forgot  the  divine  decree  under  which  He  was  appointed,  by 
death  to  become  the  Saviour  of  sinners.  Such  forgetfulness, 
according  to  Hulsius,  was  not  impossible.  The  knowledge 
of  a  decree  as  to  habit  is  one  thing,  the  actual  conscious 
recollection  of  that  knowledge  is  another  thing;  the  latter, 
the  vehemence  of  anxiety  could  take  away,  though  not  the 
former.  A  bold  assertion  this,  of  the  important  role  played 
by  Infirmity  in  the  experience  of  Christ,  which  seems  to 
justify  the  commentary  of  Schneckenburger:  "  Therefore 
even  the  heavenly  decree,  consequently  His  personal  voca- 
tion, consequently  His  personal  being,  His  esse  divinum, 
His  unto  personalis,  could  the  God-man  in  such  moments 
forget;  the  act  of  cognition  could  cease,  though  not  the 
habit  (that  is,  the  act  could  not  so  cease  that  it  could  not 
be  forthwith  restored).     So  little  was  the  personal  union, 


132  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

and  the  thence  resulting  influence  of  the  Logos  upon  the 
human  soul,  a  power  annulling  natural,  sinless  weakness, 
and  antagonistic  to  a  truly  human  development  and  life 
course.  The  influence  was  not  physical,  but  moral,  depend- 
ing on  the  will  of  the  Logos,  which  was  minded  to  leave 
room  for  such  a  development."  1  But  whether  we  be  suc- 
cessful or  not  in  reconciling  the  thorough  reality  of  Christ's 
human  nature  and  human  experience  with  the  doctrine  that 
that  nature  and  that  experience  belonged  in  very  truth  to 
the  Son  of  God,  there  can  be  no  doubt  at  all  that  we  are 
bound  by  Scripture  teaching  to  assert  both  in  the  most  un- 
qualified manner,  the  reality  of  the  humanity  not  less, 
though  of  course  not  more,  than  the  reality  of  the  divinity. 
As  indicated  in  our  seventh  axiom,  the  humanity  must  be 
allowed  to  be  as  real  as  if  Christ  had  been  a  purely  human 

1  The  work  of  Hulsius  (Syslema  Controversiaruni  Theologicartim,  Lugd.  Bat. 
1677)  I  have  failed  to  get  a  perusal  of.  It  seems  to  be  scarce  even  in  Germany, 
for  Ritschl  in  his  Lehre  von  der  Rechtfertigung  und  Versohmtng  quotes  him  at 
second  hand, — a  fact  to  which  Professor  R.  Smith  of  Aberdeen  directed  my  •atten- 
tion. The  above  account  of  Hulsius'  views  is  taken  from  Schneckenburger  (  Ver- 
gieichende  Darstdlung),  who  makes  large  use  of  this  author  in  his  chapter  on  the 
Reformed  doctrine  of  the  Redeemer's  homousia  with  us.  Ritschl  doubts  the  accu- 
racy of  Schneckenburger's  representation  of  the  views  of  Hulsius  on  Justification, 
and  a  certain  amount  of  dubiety  must  attach  to  all  statements  which  one  has  not 
the  means  of  verifying.  As,  however,  Schneckenburger  gives  a  number  of  ex- 
tracts, there  can  be  little  doubt  that  his  representation  of  the  opinions  taught  by 
Hulsius  is  substantially  correct.  These  opinions  seem  to  have  been  set  forth  in  a 
-ontroversial  writing  against  the  Catholic  theory  on  the  "Scientia  et  beatitudo 
eomprehensorum."  Among  the  extracts  given  by  Schneckenburger  are  these  (vol. 
ii.  pp.  237-240):  Fuit  nobis  per  omnia  similis  excepto  peccato,  ergo  et  quoad 
lmperfectionem  scientiae  nobis  similis  ...  Id  enim  (beatitudo  eomprehensorum) 
adversatur  officio  mediatorio,  quo  sponsoris  persona  in  se  pro  peccatore  suscipere 
debuit  reatum  et  poenam  peccati,  adeoque  miseriam,  cui  peccatum  obnoxium 
reddit  peccatorem  .  .  .  To  exclude  inferences  in  favour  of  the  Catholic  theory, 
from  the  Unio,  it  is  said:  Ab  infiuentia  physica  ad  moralem  quae  a  voluntate  pendet 
non  valet  consequentia.  Habuisse  humanitatem  Christi  praerogativas  magnas  ex 
unione  hypostatica,  sed  inde  inferri  istam  summam  beatitudinem  non  admittebat 
forma  servi  .  .  .  With  reference  to  the  agony:  Per  anxietatis  vehementiam  prae- 
sentem  memoriam  illius  decreti  fuisse  oblatam  (oblitam  ?).  Aliud  ergo  est  decreti 
cognitio  quoad  habitum,  aliud  istius  cognitionis  actualis  recordatio:  hanc  potuit 
tollere  anxietatis  vehementia,  quoad  momentum,  illam  non  item.  Schnecken- 
burger represents  Hulsius  as  inferring  ignorance  of  the  exact  bearing  of  the  decree 
of  election  on  individuals  from  Christ's  tears  shed  over  Jerusalem's  impenitence. 
Had  Christ  known  for  certain  that  the  inhabitants  were  doomed  to  perdition,  He 
could  not  have  earnestly  wished  to  save  them,  or  have  wept  because  they  would 
would  not  be  saved. 


Ltitheran  and  Reformed  Christologies.  133 

personality;  and  on  that  account  it  is  permissible  to  speak 
of  Him,  as  is  freely  done  in  the  Gospels,  as  a  human  person, 
while  not  forgetting  that  He  is  at  the  same  time  a  divine 
person.1  If  we  find  the  reconciliation  of  the  two  aspects  of 
the  personality  a  hard  task,  we  must  not  think  of  simplify- 
ing it  by  sacrificing  some  of  the  cardinal  facts,  least  of  all 
those  pertaining  to  the  human  side,  which  give  to  the  life 
of  the  Saviour  all  its  poetry,  and  pathos,  and  moral  power 
We  must  hold  fast  these  facts,  even  if  we  should  have  to 
regard  the  person  of  Christ  as  an  inscrutable  mystery — 
scientifically  an  insoluble  problem.2  Till  the  era  of  the 
Reformation  an  opposite  course  was  pursued.  Believing  in 
Christ's  divinity,  theologians  thought  it  necessary,  in  the 
interest  of  faith,  to  reduce  His  humanity  to  a  mere  meta- 
physical shell  emptied  of  all  moral  significance.  The  Council 
of  Chalcedon  had  indeed  said  a  word  in  behalf  of  the  hu- 
manity; but  its  formula  remained  for  the  most  part  a  dead 
letter.  To  the  Reformed  branch  of  the  Protestant  Church 
belongs  the  honour  of  having  asserted  with  due  emphasis 
the  long  neglected  claims  of  the  much-wronged  human 
nature.  Sincerely  confessing  the  Saviour's  divinity,  they 
did  not  suffer  their  eyes  to  be  so  dazzled  thereby  that  they 
could  not  look  the  facts  of  the  gospel  plainly  in  the  face. 
To  their  mental  views  the  sun  was  so  obscured  by  the 
dense  cloud  of  the  state  of  humiliation,  that  they  could  re- 
gard the  Incarnate  One  as  He  regarded  Himself — as  the  Son 
of  man,  the  man  of  sorrows  and  acquainted  with  grief.  In 
Him  they  found  rest  for  their  souls  as  theologians,  and  stilJ 
more  as  sinners. 

1  On  the  views  of  the  Reformed  on  the  subject  of  the  human  aspect  of  Christ's 
personality,  see  Appendix,  Note  E. 

2  So  Ritschl,  Die  Christliche  Lehre  von  der  Rechtfertigung  und  VersOhmmg, 
iii.  p.  394. 


LECTURE  IV. 

MODERN  KENOTIC  THEORIES. 

DURING  the  last  fifty  years  the  minds  of  the  learned  in 
Germany  have  been  extensively  and  intensely  exercised 
upon  theological  problems.  All  the  dogmas  in  the  Chris- 
tian creed  have  been  in  turn  made  the  subject  of  searching 
critical  inquiry;  sometimes  in  a  sceptical  spirit  and  with 
destructive  intent,  but  much  more  frequently  with  a  view 
to  the  conservation  of  the  faith,  and  the  reconstruction  of 
the  doctrinal  system.  The  doctrine  of  our  Lord's  person 
has  received  its  full  share  of  attention  in  this  great  move- 
ment of  modern  religious  thought;  it  has  indeed  been  the 
subject  of  a  quite  extraordinary  interest  due  in  part  to  its 
intrinsic  importance  and  attractiveness,  but  arising  also  in 
no  small  measure  out  of  the  ecclesiastical  movement  which 
had  for  its  object  the  reunion  of  the  two  great  branches 
of  the  German  Protestant  Church.  This  union  enterprise, 
which  commenced  as  early  as  the  year  1817,  naturally  led 
to  a  consideration  of  the  ground  of  separation,  either  in  a 
spirit  of  antiquarian  curiosity,  or  with  the  more  serious 
purpose  of  determining  the  practical  question:  what  was 
the  intrinsic  importance  of  the  points  of  difference — were 
they  of  such  a  nature  that  they  might  rightly  be  treated  as 
matters  of  forbearance,  and  therefore  no  barrier  to  church 
fellowship,  by  men  not  occupying  the  position  of  theolog- 
ical indifferentism  ?  And  so  it  came  to  pass,  that  the 
scheme  for  bringing  into  closer  relations  the  adherents 
of  the  two  confessions,  while  only  partially  successful  in 
attaining  its  avowed  object,  became  the  occasion  of  a  most 
fruitful  activity  of  mind,  on   the  subjects  involved  in  the 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  135 

great  controversy  between  the  Lutheran  and  Reformed 
churches.  The  tree  of  union  flourished  into  a  copious 
Christological  literature,  many-sided  in  its  aspects,  genial 
in  tone,  animated  by  a  scientific  truth-loving  spirit,  and  of 
value  far  surpassing  that  of  the  ephemeral  controversial 
writings,  which  similar  movements  in  other  lands  have 
called  into  existence. 

Of  this  Christological  literature  the  theories  of  the  modern 
kenotic  school,  of  which  some  account  is  to  be  given  in  the 
present  lecture,  form  no  insignificant  part.  The  Christol- 
ogy  of  kenosis  in  its  origin  and  aim  had  a  close  connection 
with  the  union  movement:  it  offered  itself  to  the  world,  in 
fact,  as  a  union  Christology.  Its  advocates  said  in  effect, 
some  of  them  said  expressly: x  We  have  studied  the 
Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  Christologies;  we  have  made 
ourselves  thoroughly  familiar  with  their  respective  positions,, 
and  with  the  arguments  by  which  these  were  defended;  we 
find  both  in  their  old  forms  untenable;  but  in  this  new,  yet 
most  .ancient  scriptural  doctrine  of  kenosis,  we  bring  some- 
thing different  from  either  of  the  old  Christologies,  yet 
having  affinities  with  both,  which  therefore  we  hope  will  be 
accepted  by  the  members  of  the  two  communions  as  the 
common  doctrine  of  a  reconstructed  church.  This  claim  to 
a  two-sided  affinity,  made  in  behalf  of  the  kenotic  theory, 
has  prima  facie  support  in  the  fact  that  the  theory  numbers 
among  its  adherents  distinguished  theologians  belonging 
to  both  confessions;  and  it  does  not  altogether  break  down 
on  closer  investigation.  There  are  at  least  footpaths,  if 
not  highways,  along  which  one  may  advance  to  the  kenosis, 
both  from  Lutheran  and  from  Reformed  ground.     You  may 

1  Gaupp,  e.  g.,  who  in  his  work,  or  pamphlet  rather,  entitled  Die  Union, 
Breslau  1847,  expounds  the  kenotic  theory  under  the  title  of  a  Ver7nittelungsver 
such,  after  having  previously  subjected  both  the  Lutheran  and  the  Reformed  doc- 
trines to  a  critical  review  in  which  their  weak  points  are  exposed.  This  little  work 
contains  some  interesting  historical  particulars  concerning  the  union  movement 
from  the  year  181 7  down  to  1846,  when  the  General  Synod  was  held,  at  which  a 
formula  of  ordination  was  framed  containing  a  summary  of  the  fundamental  doc- 
trines of  the  sister  churches.  Gaupp  charges  this  Ordinations-formutar  with 
intentional  ambiguity  designed  to  meet  the  case  of  persons  who  were  in  doubt 
even  about  fundamentals,  instancing  the  case  of  a  comma  after  Gott  dem  Vater, 
making  it  possible  for  opponents  of  the  Church  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  to  apply 
the  word  "Gott  "  to  the  Father  alone  ! — P.  169. 


136  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

reach  the  kenotic  position  from  the  Lutheran  territory 
along  the  path  of  the  communicatio  idiomatum,  simply  by 
the  inverse  application  of  the  principle;  teaching  with  ref- 
erence to  the  earthly  state  of  Christ  a  communication  of 
human  properties  to  God,  instead  of  a  communication  of 
divine  properties  to  man.  You  may  reach  the  same  pos- 
ition from  the  Reformed  territory  along  the  path  of  the 
cxinanitio,  to  which  the  Logos  became  subject  in  becoming 
man,  by  assigning  thereto  a  positive  meaning,  and  convert- 
ing the  Reformed  occultatio  or  quasi-exinanitio  into  a  real 
self-emptying  of  divine  glory  and  divine  attributes.  These 
hints  may  suffice  to  indicate  in  a  general  way  the  relation 
of  the  modern  theory  to  the  older  forms  of  the  doctrine 
current  in  the  sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries.  The 
precise  respects  in  which  the  new  and  the  old  modes  of 
thought  agree  or  differ  will  become  apparent  as  we  proceed. 
An  exposition  of  the  various  kenotic  theories  of  Christ's 
person  may  be  fitly  introduced  by  the  remark,  that  it  is  a 
feature  common  to  modern  Christologists  of  all  schools, 
to  insist  with  peculiar  emphasis  on  the  reality  of  our  Lord's 
humanity.  It  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  every  Christo- 
logical  theory  must  be  reckoned  a  failure,  which  does  not 
faithfully  reflect  the  historical  image  of  Jesus  as  depicted 
in  the  Gospels,  and  allow  Him  to  be  as  He  appears  there, 
a  veritable,  though  not  a  mere  man.  In  this  respect  modern 
Christology,  under  all  its  phases,  follows  the  Reformed 
rather  than  the  Lutheran  tendency.  But  this  cordial  and 
earnest  recognition  of  Christ's  true  and  proper  humanity 
gives  increased  urgency  to  the  question,  How  is  the  human- 
ity to  be  reconciled  with  the  divinity  ?  Some  have  an- 
swered the  question  by  denying  the  Incarnation  in  the  sense 
■of  the  creeds,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  on  which  it 
rests,  and  representing  Jesus  as  divine,  simply  inasmuch  as 
He  was  a  perfect  man,  divinity  and  humanity  being  re- 
garded as  essentially  one.  Of  the  views  of  this  school  I 
will  give  some  account  in  the  next  Lecture,  though  they 
are  not  very  closely  connected  with  our  whole  inquiry,  the 
very  idea  on  which  it  is  based  being  rejected  by  its  mem- 
bers. Our  business  at  present  is  with  those  only  who  build 
their    Christolocrv    on    the   old  foundations,    and    who    set 


Modern  Kenotic   Tlieories.  137 

themselves  the  task  of  constructing  a  theory  of  Christ's 
person  according  to  which  He  shall  be  at  once  true  God 
and  true  man;  or,  to  speak  more  exactly,  with  one  section 
of  what  may  be  called  the  modern  orthodox  party.  For 
those  who  have  addressed  themselves  to  the  common  prob- 
lem in  a  conservative  spirit  have  not  all  followed  the  same 
method  in  solving  it.  Three  different  solutions  have  been 
suggested;  one  by  Schneckenburger,  consisting  in  a  re- 
statement, with  explanations  or  modifications,  of  the  old 
Reformed  theory;  another  by  Dorner,  who,  in  his  great  work 
on  the  history  of  the  doctrine,  propounds  or  rather  hints 
the  theory  of  a  gradtial  Incarnation,  leaving  ample  room 
for  a  true  normal  human  development,  for  which  he  claims  the 
valuable  support  of  Luther's  earlier  Christological  views; 
the  third  solution  being  the  kenotic  theory,  which  seeks  to 
make  the  manhood  of  Christ  real,  by  representing  the 
Logos  as  contracting  Himself  within  human  dimensions 
and  literally  becoming  man.  It  is  this  third  solution  which 
is  now  to  engage  our  attention. 

The  idea  of  kenosis  in  the  modern  sense,  to  be  carefully 
distinguished  from  the  meaning  attached  to  the  term  in 
the  old  Giessen-Tubingen  controversy,1  seems  to  have  been 
first  broached  by  Zinzendorf,  the  founder  of  the  Moravian 
Brotherhood.  The  grain  of  thought  cast  by  him  into  the 
ground  lay  dormant  for  a  hundred  years;  then  in  the  fourth 
decade  of  the  present  century,  it  began  to  germinate,  and 
ever  since  it  has  gone  on  multiplying  abundantly,  till  now 
the  kenotic  school  has  attained  considerable  dimensions, 
and  can  number  its  adherents  among  theologians  by  scores. 
The  forms  which  the  new  theory  assumes  in  the  hands  of 
its  expounders  are  scarcely  less  numerous  than  the  ex- 
pounders themselves.  It  would  probably  be  difficult  to  find 
two  writers  who  state  the  common  doctrine  in  precisely 
the  same  way.  Happily,  however,  it  is  possible  to  reduce 
the  many  diverse  shapes  of  this  Protean  Christology  to  a 
few  leading  types,  which,  though  they  may  not  compre- 
hend all  the  subordinate  phases  of  opinion,  do  at  least  fairly 
and  sufficiently  represent  the  outstanding  characteristics 
of  the  school  as  a  whole. 

1  See  Appendix,  Note  B,  Lect.  iii. 


138  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

The  dominant  idea  of  the  kenotic  Christology  is,  that  in 
becoming  incarnate,  and  in  order  to  make  the  Incarnation 
;n  its  actual  historical  form  possible,  the  eternal  pre-existent 
Logos  reduced  Himself  to  the  rank  and  measures  of  human- 
ity. But  when  this  general  idea  has  been  announced,  three 
questions  may  be  asked  regarding  it.  First,  is  the  depo- 
tentiation  relative  or  absolute  ?  that  is  to  say,  does  it  take 
place  simply  so  far  as  the  Incarnation  is  concerned,  leaving 
the  Logos  per  se  still  in  possession  of  His  divine  attributes; 
or  does  it  take  place  without  restriction  or  qualification,  so 
that,  pro  tempore  at  least,  from  the  moment  of  birth  till  the 
moment  of  exaltation,  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity  is 
denuded  of  everything  pertaining  to  Deity,  but  its  bare, 
naked,  indestructible  essence  ?  Second,  in  what  relation 
does  the  depotentiated  Logos  stand  to  the  man  Jesus  ?  Is 
He  the  soul  of  the  man,  or  is  there  a  human  soul  in  the 
man  over  and  above  ?  Is  the  Logos  metamorphosed  into 
a  human  soul,  or  is  He  simply  self-reduced  to  the  dimensions 
of  a  human  soul,  in  order  that,  when  placed  side  by  side 
with  a  human  soul,  He  may  not  by  His  majesty  consume 
the  latter,  and  render  all  its  functions  impossible  ?  Third, 
how  far  does  the  depotentiation  or  metamorphosis,  as  the 
case  may  be,  go,  within  the  person  of  the  Incarnate  One  ? 
is  it  partial,  or  is  it  complete  ?  does  it  make  Christ  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  a  mere  man,  or  does  it  leave  Him  half 
man,  half  God, — in  some  respects  human,  in  other  respects 
superhuman  ?  All  these  questions  have  been  variously 
answered  by  different  writers.  Some  teach  a  relative 
kenosis  only,  some  an  absolute;  some  take  a  dualistic  view 
of  the  constitution  of  Christ's  person,  as  formed  by  the 
union  of  the  depotentiated  Logos,  with  a  human  nature 
consisting  of  a  true  body  and  a  reasonable  soul;  others  re- 
gard the  person  of  Christ  from  a  metamorphic  point  of 
view,  making  the  self-emptied  Logos  take  the  place  of  a 
human  soul.  Finally,  there  are  differences  among  the 
kenotic  Christologists  as  to  the  extent  to  which  they  carry 
the  kenosis, — somebeing  Apollinaristic  in  tendency,  though 
careful  to  clear  themselves  from  suspicion  on  that  score; 
others  inclining  to  the  humanistic  extreme.  Had  each  of 
the  possible  combinations  of  these  three  sets  of  alternatives 


Modern  Kenotic    Theories.  139 

its  representative  among  the  writers  of  this  school,  the 
task  before  us  would  be  formidable  indeed.  Fortunately, 
however,  we  are  not  required  by  the  history  of  opinion  to 
be  mathematically  complete  in  our  exposition,  but  may 
content  ourselves  with  giving  some  account  of  fotir  dis- 
tinct kenotic  types,  which  may  for  the  present  be  intel- 
ligibly, if  not  felicitously,  discriminated  as,  (1)  the  absolute 
dualistic  type,  (2)  the  absolute  metamorphic,  (3)  the  abso- 
lute semi-metamorphic,  and  (4)  the  real  but  relative.  Of 
the  first,  Thomasius  may  conveniently  be  taken  as  the  rep- 
resentative; of  the  second,  Gess;  of  the  third,  Ebrard;  and 
of  fourth,  Martcnsen. 

(1)  Thomasius?  the  earliest  advocate  of  the  kenosis  in 
the  present  century,  in  setting  forth  his  views,  exhibits 
great  solicitude  to  clear  himself  of  the  charge  of  doctrinal 
innovation.  He  claims  to  have  the  ecclesiastical  consensus 
on  his  side,  and  professes  to  be  in  sympathy  both  with  the 
patristic  and  with  the  old  Lutheran  Christology.  He 
recognises  the  Chalcedon  Formula  as  fixing  the  limits 
within  which  theories  laying  claim  to  orthodoxy  must  con- 
fine themselves;2  and  he  regards  his  own  theory  as  the 
legitimate  outcome  of  the  fundamental  principles  on  which 
the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  Christ's  person  is  based.  He  ad- 
mits, of  course,  that  the  old  Lutherans  did  not  teach  the 
kenotic  theory;  but  he  holds  that  "  the  dialectic  of  the 
dogma "  inevitably  leads  thereto.  The  Lutheran  con- 
ception of  the  union  of  the  natures  demands  one  of  two 
things:  either  that  the  infinite  should  come  down  to  the 
finite,  or  that  the  finite  should  be  raised  to  the  infinite.* 

1  The  statement  of  the  views  held  by  this  author  is  based  exclusively  on  the 
work,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  Erlangen  1856.  Thomasius  propounded  his 
theory  in  an  earlier  publication,  entitled  Beitrage  zur  Kirchlichen  Ckristologie, 
1845,  being  a  reprint  of  articles  which  had  previously  appeared  in  the  Zeitschrift 
fur  Protestantismus  und  Kirche.  The  Beitrage  is  simply  a  brief  rudimentary 
sketch  of  the  scheme  elaborated  in  the  larger  and  later  work. 

-   Christi  Person  und  Werk,  vol.  ii.  pp.  11 2- 1 15. 

3  The  author  quotes  a  passage  from  the  writings  of  the  Tubingen  theologians 
who  took  part  in  the  old  kenotic  controversy,  to  show  that  they  had  the  two  alter- 
natives present  to  their  minds:  Ex  necessitate  consequitur,  aut  infinitam  rov  Xoyov 
vno6za6iv  ad  finitam  carnis  praesentiam  (ad  fines  humanae  naturae)  esse  de- 
tractam,  aut  humanam  naturam  assumptam  ad  infinitam  vif66ra6iv  (ad  majes- 
tatem  infinitatis  et  omnipraesentiae)  evectam  esse.  Person  und  Werk,  ii.  pp. 
483,  484. 


140  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

The  old  Lutherans  took  the  latter  way,  and  found  that  it 
let  them  into  insuperable  difficulties;  therefore  modern 
Lutherans,  who  would  be  faithful  to  the  first  principles  of 
Christology  taught  by  their  fathers,  must  forsake  the  ancient 
path  of  the  majestas,  and  strike  into  the  new  path  of  the 
kenosis. 

Our  guide  into  the  new  way  leads  us  along  the  following 
line  of  thought.  The  life  image  of  the  Redeemer,  as  it  lies 
open  to  view  in  the  Gospel,  is  that  of  a  genuinely  human 
personality.  Jesus  is  a  man,  the  Son  of  man,  and  it  seems 
as  if  the  proper  subject  of  this  person  were  the  human  Ego.1 
But,  on  the  other  hand,  in  these  same  Gospels  Jesus  appears 
as  more  than  man;  He  speaks  of  Himself  as  standing  in  a 
peculiar  relation  to  God;  He  is  spoken  of  as  having  existed 
personally  before  He  appeared  in  the  world,  as  the  Logos 
who  was  in  the  beginning,  and  was  with  God,  and  was  God; 
and  in  view  of  these  facts  it  seems  as  if  the  Divine  should 
be  regarded  as  the  proper  subject  of  this  person.2  Yet 
there  are  not  two  Egos  in  Christ,  but  only  one,  who  is  con- 
scious at  once  of  His  premundane  being  in  God,  and  of 
His  intramundane  human  existence,  as  both  appertaining 
to  Himself.  It  is  the  same  Ego  who  says  of  Himself,  "  Be- 
fore Abraham  was,  I  am,"  and,  "  I  came  forth  from  the 
Father,  and  am  come  into  the  world;"  the  same  Ego  of 
whom  it  is  written,  that  He  is  the  absolute  Truth,  and  that 
He  called  on  God  with  strong  crying  and  tears.8  Christ 
having  pre-existed  as  the  Son  of  God  before  He  became 
man,  the  Ego  of  the  Son  of  God  is  to  be  regarded  as  the 
proper  person-forming  principle  of  the  Incarnation.  The 
Incarnation  itself  is  to  be  regarded  in  two  lights, — as 
the  assumption  by  the  Son  of  God  of  human  nature 
in  its  integrity,4  and  as  the  self-limitation  of  the  Son 
of  God  in  the  act  of  assuming  human  nature.5  The  latter 
is  necessary  in  order  to  the  former.  Were  there  no  self- 
limitation, — did  the  Son  of  God,  in  the  human  nature  as- 
sumed by  Him,  continue  in  His  divine  mode  of  being  and 
working,  in  His  supramundane  status,  and  in  the  infinitude 

1   Person  und  Werk,  ii.  pp    14.  16.  -  Ibid.  ii.  p.  22. 

3  Ibid.  ii.  p.  24.  *  Ibid.  ii.  p.  126. 

6  Ibid.  ii.  p.  141. 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  141 

of  His  world-ruling,  world-embracing  government,  the 
mutual  relation  of  the  two  united  natures  would  involve  a 
certain  duality.  The  divine  would  in  that  case  embrace 
the  human,  as  a  wider  circle  a  narrower;  with  its  knowledge, 
life,  and  activity,  the  former  would  far  outreach  the  latter; 
the  extra-historical,  the  temporal;  the  in-itself-complete, 
that  which  is  in  process  of  becoming;  the  all  filling,  all 
determining,  that  which  is  conditioned  and  bound  down  to 
the  limits  and  laws  of  earthly  existence.  The  conscious 
ness  of  the  Logos  per  se  would  not  coincide  with  that  of 
the  historical  Christ,  but  would,  as  it  were,  hover  over  it; 
the  universal  activity,  which  the  former  continues  to  exer- 
cise, would  not  be  covered  by  the  theanthropic  action  of 
the  Incarnate  One  in  the  state  of  humiliation.  That  is  to 
say,  there  would  be  no  true  Incarnation.1  Therefore  the 
theanthropic  person  can  be  constituted  only  by  God  really 
taking  part  in  a  human  mode  of  existence,  as  to  life  and 
consciousness;  and  the  Incarnation  must  consist  in  this, 
that  the  Son  of  God  enters  into  the  form  of  human  finitude, 
into  an  existence  subject  to  the  limits  of  space  and  time, 
and  to  the  conditions  of  a  human  development.2     That  is, 

1  Person  und  Werk,  ii.  p.  141:  Bleibt  namlich  Er,  der  ewige  Sohn  Gottes,  in 
der  endlichen  von  ihm  assumirten,  menschlichen  Natur  in  seiner  gOttlichen  Seins- 
und  Wirkungsweise,  beharrt  er  in  seiner  iiberweltlichen  Weltstellung,  in  der  Un- 
Deschranktheit  seines  weltbeherrschenden  und  weltumfassenden  Wakens,  so  bleibt 
auch  das  gegenseitige  Verhaltniss  beider  immer  noch  mit  einer  gewissen  Duplicitat 
behaftet.  Das  GOttliche  tiberragt  dann  gleichsam  das  Menschliche  wie  ein  weiter 
Kreisden  engern,  es  geht  mit  seinem  Wissen,  Leben,  und  Wirken  unendlich  weit 
daruber  hinaus,  als  das  Aussergeschichtliche  uber  das  Zeitliche,  als  das  in  sich 
Vollendete  liber  das  Werdende,  als  das  Allerftillende  und  Allesbestimmende  tlber 
das  Bedingte,  an  die  Grentzen  und  Gesetze  des  irdischen  Daseins  Gebundene.  Das 
Bewusstsein,  das  der  Sohn  von  sich  und  von  seinem  universalen  Walten  hat,  fallt 
mit  dem  des  historischen  Christus  nicht  in  eins  zusammen, — es  schwebt  gleichsam 
liber  ihm;  die  universale  Wirksamkeit,  welche  jener  fortwahrend  iibt,  deckt  sich 
nicht  mit  seinem  gottmenschlichen  Thun  im  Stande  der  Erniedrigung, — es  liegt 
daruber  oder  dahinter;  "  wahrend  der  Logos  in  allerftillender  Gegenwart  die 
Schopfung  durchwaltet,  ist  der  Christus  auf  das  Gebiet  der  ErlOsung,  zeitweilig 
wenigstens  auf  einem  bestimmten  Raum  eingeschrankt."  Es  ist  also  da  eine 
zwiefache  Seinsweise,  ein  doppeltes  Leben,  ein  gedoppeltes  Bewusstsein,  der  Logos 
ist  oder  hat  noch  immer  etwas,  was  nicht  in  seiner  geschichtlichen  Erscheinung 
aufgeht,  was  nicht  auch  des  Menschen  Jesus  ist — und  das  scheint  die  Einheit  dei 
Person,  die  Identitat  des  Ich  zu  zerstoren;  es  kommt  so  zu  keiner  lebendigen  und 
vollstandigen  Durchdringung  beider  Seiten,  zu  keinem  eigentlichen  Menschsein 
Gottes.  *  Ibid.  ii.  p.  143. 


142  The  Hnmiliatio7i  of  Christ. 

Incarnation  is  for  the  Son  of  God,  necessarily,  self-limita- 
tion, self-emptying,  not  indeed  of  that  which  is  essential 
to  Deity  in  order  to  be  God,  but  of  the  divine  manner  of 
existence,  and  of  the  divine  glory  which  He  had  from  the 
beginning  with  the  Father,  and  which  He  manifested  or 
exercised  in  governing  the  world.1  Such  is  the  view  given 
by  the  apostle  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,2  such  the 
view  demanded  by  the  evangelic  history;  for  on  no  other 
view  is  it  possible  to  conceive  how,  for  example,  Christ  could 
sleep  in  the  storm  on  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  What  real  sleep 
could  there  be  for  Him,  who  as  God  not  only  was  awake, 
but,  on  the  anti-kenotic  hypothesis,  as  ruler  of  the  world, 
brought  on,  as  well  as  stilled,  the  storm  ? 8 

This  doctrine,  according  to  its  author,  while  scriptural, 
satisfies  at  the  same  time  all  theological  requirements. 
For  one  thing,  it  complies  with  the  Lutheran  axiom:  "  The 
Word  not  outside  the  flesh,  nor  the  flesh  outside  the 
Word"  (nee  verb um  extra  c anient,  nee  caro  extra  verbuiri).* 
Then  the  personality  of  Christ  becomes  what  it  ought  to  be, 
a  divine-human  personality.  The  Son  of  God  continues  to 
be  Himself,  yet,  having  undergone  kenosis  in  the  manner 
aforesaid,  He  is  at  the  same  time  a  human  Ego.5  Christ 
is  the  personal  unity  of  divine  essence  and  humankind,  the 
man  who  is  God.6  Furthermore,  on  this  theory  the  two 
natures  are  preserved  entire  and  distinct.  On  the  one  hand, 
God  is  not  destroyed  by  self-limitation,  for  self-limitation 
is  an  act  of  will,  therefore  not  negation  but  rather  affirma- 
tion of  existence.  The  essence  of  God  is  not  stiff,  dead 
substance,  but  out  and  out  will,  life,  action,  self-asserting, 
self-willing,  self-controlling  self.7  Self-limitation,  therefore, 
does  not  contradict  the  essence  of  the  absolute.  The  ab- 
solute were  impotence  if  it  could  not  determine  itself  as  it 
wills.  Then  it  must  be  remembered  that  God  is  love;  and 
if  limits  are  to  be  placed  to  God's  power  of  self-exinanition, 

1  Person  und  Werk,  ii.  p.  143.  "-  Ibid.  ii.  p.  148. 

*  Ibid.  ii.  p.  156.  1  Ibid.  ii.  p.  201. 

5  Ibid.  ii.  p.  200. 

6  Ibid.  ii.  p.  203:  Christus  1st  die  persOnliche  Einheit  gOttlichen  Wesens  und 
menschlicher  Art:  der  Mensch,  welcher  Gott  ist. 

7  Ibid.  ii.  p.  203:  Es  ist  sich  selber  setzendes,  wollendes,  seiner  schlechthin 
machtiges  Selbst. 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  143 

they  must  be  wide  enough  to  give  ample  room  for  His  love 
to  display  itself.  God  may  descend  as  far  as  love  requires. 
Love  was  the  motive  of  the  Incarnation,  and  love  is  the 
sole  measure  of  its  depth;  otherwise  God  is  not  the  abso- 
lutely free,  His  power  is  not  servant  to  His  will,  but  a  tyrant 
over  it.1  On  the  other  hand,  the  humanity  too  remains 
intact.  For,  according  to  our  author,  it  is  assumed  entire, 
with  a  reasonable  soul  as  well  as  a  body;  the  doctrine  of 
metamorphosis  being  repudiated  as  destructive  at  once  of 
humanity  and  of  divinity.2  Then,  on  this  theory,  the  hu- 
man nature  is  not  only  entire  as  to  its  constituent  parts, 
but  it  possesses  personality,  and  is  no  mere  selfless  me- 
dium.8 Christ  is  conscious  of  being  a  man,  not  less  than 
of  being  the  Son  of  God.  The  Son  of  God,  entering  into 
the  existence  form  of  creaturely  personality,  made  Himself 
the  Ego  of  a  human  individual;  and  hence  His  conscious- 
ness was  specifically  human, — the  consciousness  of  a  man 
limited  in  nature,  and  possessing  both  a  body  and  a  soul, 
having  the  same  contents  and  the  same  conditions  as  ours. 
The  only  difference  between  Christ  and  us  is  this,  that 
the  Ego  in  Him  was  not  originally  born  out  of  the  human 
nature,  but  was  rather  born  into  it,  in  order  to  work  itself 
out  of  it,  and  through  it,  into  a  complete  divine-human 
person.*  Yet  again,  this  theory,  according  to  its  author, 
does  not  disturb  the  immanent  Trinity,  for  it  makes  the  Son 
of  God,  in  becoming  man,  part  with  no  essential  attributes  of 
Deity  It  strips  Him,  indeed,  of  omnipotence,  omniscience, 
and  omnipresence,  the  Redeemer  being,  during  His  earth- 
ly state,  neither  almighty,  nor  omniscient,  nor  omnipresent. 
But  these  are  not  essential  attributes  of  God,  they  are 
only  attributes  expressive  of  His  free  relation  to  the 
world  which  He  has  made;  attributes,  therefore,  not  of  the 
immanent,  but  only  of  the  economical  Trinity,  with  which 
God  can  part  and  yet  be  God,  retaining  all  essential  attri- 

1  Person  und  Werk,  ii.  p.  204. 

2  The  author  makes  such  repudiation  in  connection  with  the  views  of  Hahn  and 
Gess,  who  represent  the  Logos  as  taking  the  place  of  a  human  soul  or  spirit  in 
Christ.      Vid.  ii.  p.  196. 

3  Ibid.  ii.  pp.  201-207. 

<  Ibid.  ii.  pp.  206-208.  The  author's  view  is  stated  briefly  in  the  text.  Those 
who  possess  the  work  referred  to  are  recommended  to  read  the  whole  passage. 


144  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

butes  of  Diety. — absolute  power,  absolute  truth,  absolute 
holiness  and  love.1  These  last  the  Son  of  God  did  retain 
when  He  parted  with  the  other  relative  attributes;  far  from 
losing  them  in  becoming  incarnate,  He  rather  entered  into 
a  state  in  which  He  had  an  opportunity  of  revealing 
them.  For  the  humiliation  of  Christ  was  not  all  kenosis; 
it  was  revelation  as  well  as  exinanition.  It  meant  exinan- 
ition  so  far  as  the  relative  attributes  of  Deity  were  con- 
cerned,— self-emptying  of  omnipotence,  omniscience,  and 
omnipresence.2  But  it  meant  also,  and  partly  on  that  very 
account,  revelation,  manifestation  of  the  absolute  essential 
attributes, — of  absolute  might  as  free  self-determination, 
of  absolute  truth  as  knowledge  of  His  own  being  and  of 
His  Father's  mind,  of  absolute  holiness  and  love.3  Finally, 
the  kenosis,  while  complete  so  far  as  the  relative  attributes 
of  Deity  are  concerned,  is  nevertheless  not  a  state  of  help- 
less passivity.  Even  when  the  passivity  is  at  its  maximum, 
— in  the  conception,  in  death, — the  kenosis  is  free,  and 
reaches  its  highest  points  of  activity.  In  these  moments 
the  Son  of  God  makes  the  highest  display  of  His  obedience 
towards  God;  they  are  the  magna  opera  of  His  redeeming 
love,  thought,  willed,  done  by  Himself.  Hoiv,  we  may  not 
be  able  to  explain,  but  the  fact  is  so.  A  right  conception 
of  what  is  meant  by  potence  helps,  at  least,  to  understand 

1  This  distinction  between  the  relative  and  essential  attributes  of  God  is  the 
speculative  foundation  of  the  Thomasian  Christology.  For  a  detailed  exposition 
of  the  author's  doctrine  of  the  attributes  and  of  the  Trinity,  the  reader  is  referred 
to  Chris ti  Person  und  Werk,  vol.  i.  pp.  47-136. 

5  Person  und  IVerk,  ii.  p.  238.  The  miracles  of  Christ  our  author  does  not 
regard  as  evidence  of  omnipotence;  they  were  wrought  through  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  proved  not  Christ's  divine  nature,  but  only  His  divine  mission.      Vid.  p.  250. 

3  Ibid.  ii.  pp.  236,  237:  Es  ist  Offenbarung  der  immanenten  gottlichen  Eigen- 
schaften,  der  absoluten  Macht,  Wahrheit,  Heiligkeit  und  Liebe.  .  .  .  Und  diess 
gilt  nicht  bios  von  den  beiden  zuletzt  genannten,  auch  die  beiden  ersten  eignen 
ihm  in  dem  fruher  (I.  Th.  §  II  u.  16)  bezeichneten  Sinne:  die  absolute  Macht  als 
die  Freiheit  der  Selbstbestimmung,  als  der  sein  selbst  volkommen  machtige  Wille, 
die  absolute  Wahrheit  als  das  klare  Wissen  des  Gottlichen  um  sich  selbst,  naher, 
als  das  Wissen  des  Menschgewordenen  um  sein  eigenes  Wesen  und  um  den  Willen 
des  Vaters.  Nicht  gelernt  hat  er  diesen  in  irgend  einer  menschlichen  Schule; 
innerlich,  vermOge  seiner  Einheit  mit  dem  Vater,  schaut  er  dessen  ewige  Ge- 
danken.  The  author  goes  on  to  say,  that  though  this  knowledge  was  only  grad- 
ually developed  through  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  was  but  a  development  of  what  lay  in 
the  depths  of  Christ's  being. 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  145 

the  mystery.  Potence,  as  the  word  implies,  does  not  sig- 
nify something  impotent  or  empty,  but  being  contracted  to 
its  innermost  ground,  fulness  concentrated  in  itself  from 
the  circumference  of  appearance  and  activity,  having  there- 
fore power  over  itself.  Such  power  was  latent  in  the  Log- 
os, even  after  He  had  been  reduced,  through  Incarnation, 
to  the  state  of  a  mere  potency.1 

(2)  In  constructing  a  theory  of  Christ's  person  to  corre- 
spond with  the  historical  facts,  as  inductively  ascertained, 
Gess"1  lays  stress  on  three  scriptural  representations  of  the 
Incarnation,  in  which  that  event  is  exhibited,  (1)  as  an  out- 
going from  the  Father,  (2)  as  a  descent  from  heaven,  and  (3) 
as  becoming  flesh.  By  the  first  of  these  representations, 
the  author  understands  an  exit,  on  the  part  of  the  pre-exis- 
tent  Logos,  out  of  the  intimacy  of  His  communion  with  the 
Father,8  having  for  its  result,  not  a  dissolution  of  the 
mutual  indwelling  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit,  but  a 
suspension  of  the  influx  of  the  eternal  life  of  the  Father 
who  hath  life  in  Himself  into  the  Son,  in  virtue  of  which 
the  Son  pro  tempore  ceased  to  have  life  in  Himself.  The 
Son,  in  becoming  man,  lost  the  consciousness,  and  with  the 
consciousness  the  activity,  and  with  the  activity  the  capacity 
to  receive  into  Himself  the  influx  of  the  Father's  life,  and 
to  cause  that  instreaming  life  to  flow  forth  from  Himself 
again.*     By  the  descent  from  heaven  is  signified  the  humili- 

1  Person  und  Werk,  ii.  p.  243:  Beides  lasst  sich  in  den  Begriff  der  Potenz  zu- 
sammenschliessen,  von  welcher  wir  sagten,  dass  sich  der  Logos,  menschwerdend, 
auf  sie  zurtickgezogen  habe.  Denn  die  Potenz  ist,  wie  schon  der  Ausdruck  an- 
deutet,  nicht  etwas  Ohnmachtiges  oder  Leeres,  sondern  das  in  seinem  innersten 
Grunde  zusammengefasste  Wesen,  die  aus  der  Peripherie  der  Erscheinung  und 
Actuositat  in  sich  concentrirte  unendliche  Fulle,  welche  ebendeshalb  die  Macht 
ihrer  selbst  ist.  Und  diese  Macht  tragt  auch  das  gOttliche  Selbstbewusstsein, 
zwar  nicht  als  reftectirtes,  gegenstandliches,  doch  aber  als  latitirendes,  mithin  als 
wirklich  vorhandenes  in  sich.  Es  ist  mit  einbegriffen  in  der  freien  Willensthat, 
kraft  deren  der  Gottmensch  sich  selbst  dahingibt.  Vid.  Appendix,  Note  A,  for 
an  account  of  the  kenotic  literature  coming  under  the  Thomasian  type. 

s  The  following  statement  of  Gess'  theory  is  based  on  his  work,  Die  Lehre  von 
der  Person  Christi  entwickelt  an;  dem  Selbstbewusstsein  Christi  und  aus  devi 
Zeugnisse  der  Apostel,  Basel  1856.  The  author  has  published  a  new  larger  work 
on  the  same  theme,  entitled  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  of  which  the  first  volume 
has  for  its  subject  the  self-witness  of  Christ.  No  material  change  of  view  appears 
in  this  volume. 

3  Die  Lehre  von  der  Person  Christi,  p.  294.  4  Ibid.  ii.  p.  307. 


146  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

ation  or  kenosis  whereof  the  apostle  speaks;  which,  accord 
ing  to  the  most  natural  interpretation  of  the  words,  imports  a 
transition,  on  the  part  of  the  Logos  incarnate,  from  a  state 
of  equality  with  God  into  a  state  of  dependence  and  need, 
a  laying  aside  of  His  pretemporal  glory;  that  is,  not  merely 
of  the  blessed  life  in  light,  but  of  the  life  which  is  indepen- 
dent and  self-sufficient,  and  of  which  omniscience  and 
omnipotence  are  attributes.1  These  attributes,  therefore, 
the  Logos  parted  with  in  His  descent  from  heaven;  nay, 
not  only  with  these  so-called  relative  attributes,  but  also 
with  those  which  Thomasius  by  way  of  distinction  names 
the  immanent  attributes  of  Deity.  Incarnation  involved 
the  loss  not  only  of  the  perfect  knowledge  of  the  world, 
called  omniscience,  but  of  the  perfect  vision  of  God,  denom- 
inated in  the  Thomasian  theory  absolute  knowledge.2  For 
the  Logos,  in  becoming  man,  suffered  the  extinction  of  His 
eternal  self-consciousness,  to  regain  it  again  after  many 
months,  as  a  human,  gradually  developing,  variable  consci- 
ousness, sometimes,  as  in  childhood,  in  sleep,  in  death, 
possessing  no  self-consciousness  at  all.3  All  this  is  inevit- 
ably involved  in  becoming  flesh,  for  this  third  scriptural 
representation  of  the  Incarnation  signifies,  that  the  flesh 
with  which  the  Logos  was  united  became  for  Him  a  deter- 
mining power,  even  as,  apart  from  sin,  it  is  a  determining 
power  for  the  ordinary  human  soul.  According  to  the 
creative  decree  of  God,  the  life  development  of  the  soul 
depends  upon  the  development  of  the  body;  it  requires  a 
certain  maturity  of  the  physical  organization  for  the  soul  to 
waken  up  to  self-conscious  voluntary  life,  in  order  that 
thereafter,  as  personal  soul,  it  may  gradually  subject  its 
bodily  organ  to  the  laws  inscribed  on  itself  by  the  hand  of 
divine  holiness.  Christ's  life  was  subject  to  the  same 
decree.  It  was  first  a  natural  life,  in  which  the  Logos  was 
subject  to  the  power  of  the  flesh;  then  it  became  a  personal 
life,  in  which  the  Logos  became  self-conscious,  and  made 

1  Die  Lehre  von  der  Person  Christi,  ii.  p.  296. 

2  Ibid.  p.  ii.  311.  Gess  disallows  the  Thomasian  distinction  between  relative  and 
immanent  attributes,  and  remarks,  that  if  the  doctrine  of  kenosis  is  to  be  built  on 
such  an  insecure  foundation,  it  is  in  a  bad  way.     P.  312. 

3  Ibid.  ii.  p.  312. 


Modem  Kenotic   Theories.  147 

the  flesh  subject  to  Himself,  until,  at  the  close  of  His 
human  development,  the  body  of  His  flesh  became  trans- 
formed into  a  glorious  body,  that  is,  a  body  fitted  to  be 
the  perfect  organ  of  the  Logos,  once  more  restored  to  the 
fulness  of  divine  life.1  In  virtue  of  this  subjection  to  the 
determining  power  of  the  flesh,  it  came  to  pass  that,  when 
the  Logos  in  the  child  Jesus  began  to  be  self-conscious,  He 
knew  nothing  of  His  Logos-nature,  and  did  not  waken  up 
forthwith  to  the  Logos-work  of  world-quickening,  illumin- 
ation, and  government,  but  only  to  the  work  of  calling 
"my  Father,  my  mother,"2  and  of  distinguishing  between 
good  and  evil.  Doubtless  the  potence,  the  abstract  capa- 
city for  these  works,  was  there  from  the  first,  for  the 
Logos-essence  remained  unchangeable;  the  attributes  of 
omniscience,  omnipotence,  and  omnipresence  may  be  said  to 
have  simply  entered  into  a  state  of  rest;  but  it  was  a  rest 
out  of  which  they  could  not  return  into  a  state  of  activity, 
so  long  as  the  moving  power,  the  eternal  self-consciousness, 
on  which  they  all  depend,  was  itself  not  there.8  How  and 
when,  then,  did  the  Logos,  plunged  by  Incarnation  into  the 
oblivion-causing  waters  of  Lethe,  at  length  attain  to 
self-consciousness  ?  Was  it  by  recollection  of  His  pre- 
existent  state  ?  Not  principally,  for  a  clear  and  constant 
recollection  would  be  incompatible  with  a  life  of  faith.4  Or 
was  it  by  reflection  and  inference  exercised  on  Old  Testa- 
ment Scriptures  ?  This  was  undoubtedly  one  means  to- 
wards self-knowledge.  The  birth  of  Christ  in  the  midst  of 
the  Jewish  race  made  it  possible  for  Him  to  attain  to  a 
knowledge  of  who  He  was,  by  the  way  of  a  truly  human 
development.     Had  He  been  born  a  Greek,  that  would  have 

1  Die  Lehre  v.  d.  Person  Christi,  ii.  pp.  308,  309.  s  Ibid.  ii.  p.  306. 

3  Die  Ablegung  der  Allwissenheit  und  ewigen  Heiligkeit  kann  als  ein  unmog- 
licher  Gedanke  erscheinen,  aber  die  Sache  wird  klar,  wenn  man  zurtickgeht  auf  die 
Wurzel  des  Selbstbewusstsein.  Mat  dem  allwissenden  Ueberschauen  der  Welt  war 
aber  zugleich  auch  das  allverm5gende  Regieren  derselben  aufgegeben,  und  mit 
diesem  das  Allem  Gegenwartig  sein.  Nicht  als  waren  diese  VermOgen  schlecht- 
weg  dahingewesen:  die  Logoswesenheit  war  ja  auf  Erden  dieselbe,  wie  zuvor  im 
Himmel,  man  kann  also  sagen,  diese  VermOgen  waren  nur  in  den  Stand  der  Ruhe 
getreten,  aber  in  eine  Ruhe,  aus  welcher  sie  nicht  in  die  Aktivitat  zuriickkehren 
konnten,  so  lange  die  sie  bewegende  Kraft,  nehmlich  das  ewige  Selbstbewusstsein 
selbst,  nicht  als  solches  da  gewesen  ist. — Die  Lehre  v.  d.  Person  Christi,  ii.  p.  317. 

*  Ibid.  ii.  p.  355. 


148  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

been  impossible.1  At  the  same  time,  it  is  not  to  be  supposed 
that  self-consciousness  was  reached  merely  by  reflection 
and  inference.  There  must  have  been  latent  in  the  incar- 
nate Logos  a  certain  instinct,  as  men  call  that  mysterious 
gift  whose  true  name  is  an  inspiration  of  God.5  As  the 
children  of  God  know  themselves  to  be  such  by  the  witness 
of  the  Spirit;  as  the  prophets  knew  that  God  had  called 
them,  and  had  made  a  revelation  to  them,  by  an  inward 
assurance  based  on  an  intercourse  between  the  divine 
Spirit  and  the  human  soul,  whose  laws  elude  our  compre- 
hension, but  whose  reality  is  indubitable;  so  the  knowledge 
possessed  by  Jesus  of  the  secret  of  His  person  was  based 
upon  the  peculiarly  intimate  fellowship  which  subsisted 
between  His  Father  and  Himself.3  And  for  the  rest,  who 
will  deny  that  the  recollection  of  the  pre-existence  might 
occasionally  flash  through  into  the  human  consciousness 
of  the  Incarnate  One  ? 4  As  for  the  time  at  which  the 
Logos  incarnate  attained  to  a  clear  self-consciousness,  it 
cannot  be  precisely  determined.  The  morning  twilight  of 
His  self-knowledge  appeared  when  He  was  a  boy  of  twelve 
years;  the  perfect  day  had  arrived  by  the  time  He  went 
forth  to  commence  His  ministry.  Between  twelve  and 
thirty  the  great  mystery  of  godliness,  God  manifest  in  the 
flesh,  had  become  fully  revealed  to  the  Incarnate  mystery 
Himself.5  Probably  the  revelation  took  place  long  before 
He  had  reached  the  latter  period  of  life;  for  Jesus  had  to 
learn  to  wait  as  none  other  ever  had.  In  all  likelihood, 
it  was  a  part  of  His  discipline,  that  He  had  to  wait  for  the 
appointed  time  for  commencing  His  life-work  long  after 
He  had  become  aware  what  the  work  was  to  which  He 
was  called.6 

'  Die  Lehrev.  d.  Person  Christi,  ii.  pp.  357-8:  Unter  den  Griechen  geboren, 
hatte  Jesus  sich  nicht  auf  dem  Wege  wahrhaft  menschlicher  Entwicklung  als  den 
Sohn  Gottes  zu  erkennen  vermocht. 

2  Ibid.  ii.  p.  358:  Jenes  Geheimnissvolle,  das  man  etwa  den  geistigen  Instinc! 
nennt,  dessen  eigentliches  Wesen  aber  ein  Anhauch  Gottes  ist. 

3  Ibid.  ii.  p.  358. 

4  Ibid.  ii.  p.  358:  Und  wer  wollte  schlechthin  leugnen,  dass  in  einzelnen  Mo- 
men  ten  die  Erinnerung  der  Praexistenz  den  Fleischgewordenen  durchblitzen 
mochie?  Nur  dass  sie  zur  bleibenden  Leuchte  seines  Inneren  geworden  sei,  ddrfen 
wir  um  des  oben  angeluhrten  Grundes  willen  nicht  annehmen. 

s  Ibid.  ii.  p.  359.  6  ibid.  ii.  p.  361. 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  149 

Here,  then,  we  have  a  tolerably  complete  metamorphosis 
of  the  Logos,  manifestly  standing  in  great  need  of  adjust- 
ment to  correlated  doctrines.  What,  e.g.,  on  this  theory, 
is  to  be  said  of  the  integrity  of  Christ's  assumed  humanity  ? 
The  Logos,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  is  transformed  into 
a  human  soul;  does  He  then  assume  another  human  soul 
over  and  above  ?  Gess  replies  in  the  negative.  The 
Church,  he  says,  quite  properly  affirmed,  in  opposition  to 
Apollinaris,  that  Christ  had  a  true  human  soul;  but  it  did 
not  see,  what  however  is  the  truth,  that  the  Logos  Him- 
self was  that  soul.  He  did  not  assume,  He  became  a  hu- 
man soul,  and  thereby  the  presence  of  another  soul  was 
rendered  entirely  superfluous.1  The  only  possible  objec- 
tion to  calling  the  incarnate  Logos  a  human  soul  is,  that 
His  soul  was  not  derived  from  Mary;  but  this  objection  has 
force  only  for  those  who  hold  the  traducian  theory  con- 
cerning the  origin  of  souls,  which  however  is  untenable 
according  to  our  author,  all  souls  coming  directly  from 
God.  The  only  difference  between  the  Logos  and  a  human 
soul  was,  that  he  became  human  by  voluntary  kenosis, 
while  an  ordinary  human  soul  derives  its  existence  from  a 
creative  act.2  And  how,  again,  are  we  to  think  on  this 
theory  of  Christ's  moral  integrity,  His  sinlessness  ?  Was 
that  sinlessness,  admitted  as  a  fact,  due  to  an  inability  to 
sin  (?ion  posse  peccare),  as  in  the  Apollinarian  system,  which 
made  the  Logos  take  the  place  of  a  human  spirit  in  Jesus, 
in  order  to  get  rid  of  the  bare  possibility  of  sin  ?  Not  so, 
according  to  our  author.  A  capability  of  sinning  {posse 
peccare)  must  be  ascribed  to  Christ,  otherwise  the  reality 
of  His  humanity  is  denied.  To  represent  the  Saviour  as 
from  the  first  in  possession  of  a  will  unalterably  decided  for 
God,  is  to  revive  in  a  new  form  the  error  of  Apollinaris, 
who  made  an  unchangeable  being  take  the  place  of  the 
changeable  human  soul.8     The  loss  of  eternal  holiness  was 

1  Die  Lehre  v.  d.  Person  Christi,  ii.  p.  321:  Dass  eine  wahrhaft  menscbliche 
Seele  in  Jesu  war,  versteht  sich  fur  und  von  selbst:  er  war  ja  sonst  kein  wirklicher 
Mensch.  Aber  die  Frage  ist,  ob  der  in's  Werden  eingegangene  Logos  selbst 
liese  menschliche  Seele,  oder  ob  neben  dem  in's  Werden  eingegangenen  Logo? 
noch  eine  besondere  menschliche  Seele  in  Jesu  war?  P.  324:  Wozu  diese  Dop- 
pelheit  und  wer  kann  sie  versteherz* 

2  Ibid.  ii.  p.  325  ff.  2  Ibid.  ii.  p.  349. 


i5o  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

one  of  the  accompaniments  of  Incarnation.  Not  that  there 
is  any  need  for  asking  in  alarm,  what  would  have  happened, 
had  the  possibility  been  converted  into  an  actual  fact,  for 
the  Incarnation  proceeded  upon  a  divine  foreknowledge 
that  the  Incarnate  Logos  would  not  fall  into  sin;  a  fore- 
knowledge which  at  the  same  time  in  no  way  interfered 
with  Christ's  freedom,  or  imposed  upon  Him  an  eternal 
necessity  of  not  sinning.1  That  Christ  was  simply  an  or- 
dinary man,  who  in  virtue  partly  of  His  peculiar  birth  hap- 
pened not  to  sin,  is  not  asserted.  Our  author  is  not  will- 
ing to  admit  that  his  doctrine  amounts  to  a  metamorphosis 
of  the  Logos  into  a  man;  he  is  anxious  to  make  it  appear 
that  there  was  a  superadamitic  element  in  Jesus.2  But  he 
contends  that  that  element  did  not  consist  in  a  non  posse 
peccare,  but  only  in  an  extraordinary  devotion,  on  the  part 
of  the  Incarnate  Logos,  to  His  Father's  will,  which  was 
accompanied  by  an  equally  extraordinary  measure  of  the 
Spirit's  indwelling  and  influence,  and  of  knowledge  con- 
cerning divine  things.3 

The  theory  in  question  stands  in  need  of  adjustment  also 
to  the  received  doctrine  of  the  divine  unchangeableness  and 
to  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity.  How  is  it  possible,  one  may 
well  ask,  that  a  Divine  Being  can  thus  all  but  extinguish 
Himself?  The  ready  reply  is:  It  is  possible  just  because 
He  is  God,  and  not  a  creature.  The  dependence  of  an 
ordinary  man  appears,  not  merely  in  his  inability  to  raise 
himself  to  a  higher  scale  of  being  than  he  was  designed  for, 
but  also  in  his  inability  to  make  his  life  cease,  or  to  reduce 
it  into  a  state  of  unconsciousness.  The  Logos,  on  the 
contrary,  has  life  in  Himself;  His  voluntary  reception  of 
the  life  streaming  into  Him  out  of  the  Father  is  the  ground 


1  Die  Lehrevonder  Person  Christi,    ii.  p.  318. 

•  Ibid.  ii.  p.  350;  In  dieser  Erkenntniss  dass  der  irdische  Entwicklungsgang  des 
Sohnes  die  Moglichkeit  des  Slindigens  in  sich  schloss,  und  dass  eben  diess  zur 
Aufgabe  Jesu  gehorte,  den  Naturzug  seines  ewigen  Geistes  zu  Gott  zum  gehei- 
ligten  Charakter  zu  erheben,  darf  uns  auch  die  Frage  nicht  irre  machen,  was  doch 
geworden  ware,  wenn  der,  welcher  slindigen  konnte,  wirklich  gesilndigt  hatte. 
Die  Antwort,  welche  auf  diese  Fra^'e  gegeben  werden  kann,  ist  nur  die,  dass  Gott 
sein  s-Ondloses  bestehen  aller  Yersuchungen  vorausgesehen  hat. 

3  Ibid.  p.  331,  note  in  reply  to  Liebner. 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  i5i 

of  His  life,  His  self-consciousness  is  His  own  deed.1  Hence 
He  can  extinguish  His  self-consciousness;  He  would  not  be 
almighty  if  He  had  not  power  over  Himself.  The  power 
of  God  indeed  is  not  limitless,  nor  is  His  freedom  arbitrary. 
But  the  only  limit  of  divine  power  is  holiness  or  love.  If, 
therefore,  the  holy  love  of  God  desires  to  help  us,  and  if 
for  that  end  Incarnation  is  necessary,  and  if  Incarnation 
involves  in  its  very  nature  transient  extinction  of  the  divine 
self-consciousness,  and  the  resumption  of  the  same  as 
human,  and  subject  to  growth,  then  such  an  experience 
must  be  possible.2 

How,  finally,  is  this  metamorphic  theory  of  the  Incarna- 
tion to  be  reconciled  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  ? 
The  author  admits  that  his  theory  involves  these  four  con- 
sequences for  the  internal  life  of  the  triune  God:  (i)  the 
eternal  forth-streaming  of  the  divine  life  of  the  Son  out  of 
the  Father  is  brought  to  a  stand  during  the  time  of  the 
kenosis;  (2)  for  that  reason,  during  the  same  time,  the  Son 
cannot  be  the  life-source  out  of  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
flows;  (3)  during  that  time  the  subsistence  of  the  world  in 
the  Son,  its  upholding  and  government  through  the  Son,. 
is  suspended;  (4)  as  the  glorified  Son  remains  man,  from 
the  time  of  His  exaltation  a  man  is  taken  up  into  the  trin- 
itarian  life  of  God.  He  remarks  that  the  three  first  con- 
sequences could  easily  be  got  rid  of  by  adopting  the  theory 
of  a  double  life  of  the  Logos,  and  holding  that  while  the 
Son  of  God,  as  the  man  Jesus,  emptied  Himself  utterly  of 
divine  glory,  and  lived,  our  like,  with  purely  human  conscious- 
ness and  will,  nevertheless  His  divine  trinitarian  being  and 
rule  underwent  no  interruption.  He  declines,  however,  to 
adopt  this  view,  and  prefers  to  escape  difficulties  by  adjust- 
ing the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  to  his  own  theory.  This  he 
does  by  introducing  into  the  Trinity  a  certain  inequality 
between  the  persons.  The  Father  alone  possesses  the 
property  of  being  from  Himself  (aseity).  The  Son,  indeed, 
also  hath  life  in  Himself;  but  it  is  as  a  gift  of  the  Father's 


'   Vid.  Zweiter  Abschnitt,  cap.  3,  p.  222,  "Die  gOttliche  Herrlichkeit  Jesu  anf 
Erden." 
9  Ibid.  p.  310. 


1 52  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

eternal  love.1  If  the  relation  between  the  persons  were  one 
according  to  which  they  were  all  mutually  conditioning 
and  conditioned,  then  the  kenosis  would  either  be  impossible, 
or  it  would  imperil  the  Godhead  of  the  Father.  But  as  the 
Father  alone  possesses  aseity,  and  as  it  is  His  free  love 
which  begets  the  Son,  it  is  possible  for  the  Father,  during 
the  period  of  exinanition,  to  substitute,  for  the  overflow  of 
His  life  into  the  Son,  that  gentle  influx  of  life  into  Jesus, 
wave  by  wave,  which  corresponds  to  the  Son's  position  as 
a  man  subject  to  gradual  development  in  time,2  reserving 
to  Himself,  the  while,  the  government  of  the  world  and  the 
administration  of  the  Spirit.  Nor  does  this  change  affect 
the  eternity  of  divine  life,  or  of  the  generation  of  the  Son 
(though  that  process  during  the  exinanition  comes  to  a 
temporary  pause3),  or  of  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
from  the  Son.  Eternity  does  not  consist  in  the  exclusion 
of  change.  The  eternity  of  the  Father  lies  in  His  aseity; 
the  eternity  of  the  Son  and  Spirit  in  the  freedom  of  their 
life,  which  streams  forth  from  the  Father,  and  is  essentially 
equal  to  the  life  of  the  Father.     By  entering  into  time,  and 

1  Die  Lehre  von  der  Person  Christi,  p.  396  ff.  In  proof  that  the  Father  alone 
possesses  aseity,  Gess  refers  to  the  text:  "The  Father  hath  given  the  Son  to  have 
life  in  Himself,"  and  to  the  fact  that  in  Scripture  the  Father  is  called  Der  Gott, 
while  the  Son  is  called  only  Gott,  and  that  He  is  also  called  the  God  of  Christ 
(pp.  402,  403). 

-'  Ware  das  Gottsein  des  Vaters  durch  die  ewige,  ewig  gegenwartige  Zeugung 
des  Sohnes  bedingt,  so  liesse  sich  nicht  verstehen,  wie  der  Sohn  sich  seiner  Got- 
tesherrlichkeit  entaussern,  wie  die  ewige  Zeugung  des  Sohnes  durch  den  Vater, 
das  ewige  Austromen  des  Gotteslebens  vom  Vater  in  den  Sohn  sich  stille  stellen 
kann:  die  Gottheit  des  Vaters  selbst  wurde  dadurch  gefahrdet  scheinen.  Noch 
-weniger  ware  die  Selbstentausserung  des  Sohnes  mOglich,  wenn  auch  diesem  ein 
.Antheil  zukame  an  Gottes  Aseitat,  an  Gottes  Selbstbegrundung,  so  dass  nur  in  der 
•  dreipersOnlichen  Selbstbegtlrndung  Gottes,  wie  jede  der  drei  Personem,  so  die 
Totalitat  derselben  ihr  Leben  hatte.  Aber  es  ist  die  freie  Liebe  des  Vaters, 
■welche  den  Sohn  zeugt,  darum  kann  der  Vater,  filr  die  Zeit  der  Selbstentausserung 
•des  Sohnes,  an  die  Stelle  der  vollen  UeberstrOmung  des  Gotteslebens  vom  Vater 
in  den  Sohn  jenes  sanfte  Einfliessen  einer  Lebenswelle  um  die  andere  in  Jesum 
eintreten  lassen,  welches  dem  Eingegangensein  des  Sohnes  in  die  Verhaltnisse 
eines  allmahlig  sich  entwickelnden,  iiberhaupt  der  Zeitlichkeit  unterworfenen 
Menschen  entspricht. — Die  Lehre  von  der  Person  Christi,  p.  403. 

3  Ibid.  ii.  p.  405.  The  glorification  of  Christ  after  the  time  of  exinanition  was 
past,  consisted  in  the  recommencement  of  the  process  of  eternal  generati  )n  which 
took  place  immediately  afier,  so  that  the  Son  of  God  had  power  to  raise  His  own 
body.  —  Vid.  also  pp.  380-382. 


Modern  Kenotic   Tfieories.  153 

undergoing  kenosis  for  thirty  years,  the  Son  did  not  become 
subject  to  time,  but  rather  revealed  the  eternal  as  the  King 
of  time.  To  master  time,  so  that  it  shall  not  stand  over 
against  the  supra-temporal  as  an  unapproachable  Other, 
but  be  a  form  of  existence  at  His  command,  is  God's  highest 
revelation  of  His  eternity.1  ~ 

(3)  The  kenotic  theory  as  expounded  by  Ebrard  pos- 
sesses interest  not  only  as  a  distinct  type  of  the  doctrine, 
but  as  a  contribution  to  the  literature  of  the  subject,  by  a 
prominent  modern  representative  of  the  Reformed  com- 
munion, professing  cordial,  though  not  slavish,  attachment 
to  the  doctrinal  tendency  of  his  church.  Ebrard  first  pro- 
mulgated his  view  of  the  person  of  Christ  in  a  work  on  the 
dogma  of  the  Holy  Supper,  published  in  1845-46,  and  de- 
signed to  promote  the  cause  of  union;  and  subsequently  at 
greater  length  in  a  work  on  Christian  dogmatics,  published 
in  185 1-52. 3  This  able,  learned,  but  somewhat  whimsica.' 
and  unreliable  writer,  agrees  with  Gess  in  making  the  in- 
carnate Logos  take  the  place  of  a  human  soul.  The  ancient 
Church  was  of  course  right  in  maintaining,  against  Apol- 
linaris,  that  Christ  had  a  true  human  soul;  for,  in  truth, 
the  Logos,  in  undergoing  Incarnation,  became  a  human 
soul.  According  to  the  representation  in  Scripture,  Jesus 
did  not  consist  of  a  body  in  which,  in  place  of  a  human 
soul,  dwelt  the  eternal  Logos — a  monstrous  conception — 
the  eternal  Logos  dwelling  in  a  space-bounded  body  !  but 
the  eternal  Son  of  God  in  becoming  man  gave  up  the  form 
of  eternity,  and  in  full  self-limitation  assumed  the  exis- 
tence-form of  a  human  life-centre,  of  a  human  soul;  had, 
as  it  were,  reduced  Himself  to  a  human  soul.4     This  self- 

1  Die  Lehre  von  der  Person  Christi,  pp.  405,  406:  Dieses  freie  Hineintreten 
in  die  Zeitlichkeit,  urn  wieder  zurtickzukehren  in  die  Ewigkeit,  ist  also  gerade  ein 
Triumphiren  der  Ewigkeit  liber  die  Zeitlichkeit,  eine  Erweisung  des  Ewigen  als 
des  KOniges  der  Zeit  welche  ihm  dienen  muss,  indem  er  sich  in  ihren  Dienst  be- 
giebt  und  welche  ihn  nicht  festhalten  kann,  nachdem  er  sein  Werk  vollbracht. 
KOniglich  die  Zeit  zu  bemeistern,  dass  sie  dem  Ueberzeitlichen  nicht  als  ein  un- 
nahbares  Anderes  gegentibersteht,  sondern  als  eine  Form  seines  Daseins  zu  Gebote 
steht,  das  ist  Gottes  hOchste  Offenbarung  seiner  Ueberzeitlichkeit. 

*  See  Appendix,  Note  B,  on  literature  belonging  to  the  Gessian  type. 

3  See  Appendix,  Note  C. 

4  Christliche  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  40:  Der  ewige  Sohn  Gottes  hatte  die  Form  der 
Ewigkeit  aufgegeben  und  in  freier  Selbstbeschrankung  die  Existenzform   eines 


1 54  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

reduction,  however,  does  not  in  the  scheme  now  under 
review,  as  in  that  of  Gess,  amount  to  a  depotentiation  of 
the  incarnate  Logos.  The  Son  of  God  in  becoming  man 
underwent  not  a  loss,  but  rather  a  disguise  of  His  divinity; 
not,  however,  in  the  old  Reformed  sense  of  occultation,  but 
in  the  sense  that  the  divine  properties,  while  retained,  were 
possessed  by  the  Theanthropos  only  in  the  time-form 
appropriate  to  a  human  mode  of  existence.  The  Logos,  in 
assuming  flesh,  exchanged  the  form  of  God,  that  is,  the 
eternal  manner  of  being,  for  the  form  of  a  man,  that  is,  the 
temporal  manner  of  being.  Herein  consisted  the  kenosis.1 
The  kenosis  does  not  mean  that  Christ  laid  aside  His  omni- 
potence, omnipresence,  and  omniscience;  but  that  He  re- 
tained these  in  such  a  way  that  they  could  be  expressed  or 
manifested,  not  in  reference  to  the  collective  universe,  but 
only  in  reference  to  particular  objects  presenting  themselves 
to  His  notice  in  time  and  space.  Omnipotence  remained, 
but  in  an  applied  form,  as  an  unlimited  power  to  work 
miracles;  omniscience  remained  in  an  applied  form,  as  an 
unlimited  power  to  see  through  all  objects  which  He  wished 
to  see  through;  omnipresence  remained  in  an  applied  form, 
as  an  unlimited  power  to  transport  Himself  whither  He 
would.3  The  incarnate  Son  of  God  stood  over  against 
nature  as  the  absolute  Lord  ruling  over  it  in  a  free  creative 
manner;  not,  indeed,  in  the  form  of  world-governing  omni- 
potence, but  in  the  form  of  omnipotence  applied  to  par- 
ticular cases,  in  particular  times  and  places.  Though  He 
no  longer  possessed  eternal  omniscience,  yet  He  possessed, 
in  reference  to  particular  objects  which  came  in  His  way, 
a  knowledge  which,  compared  with  the  knowledge  of  sin- 

menschlichen  Lebenscentrums,  einer  menschlichen  Seele,  angenommen,  hatte 
sich  gleichsam  bis  zu  einer  Menschenseele  reducirt.  See  also  vol.  ii.  p.  7,  note  on 
the  miraculous  conception,  where  we  read:  jene  dvvamS  Gottes  hatte  nicht  das 
Geschaft,  eine  Seele  (ein  Lebenscentrum)  zu  erzeugen,  sondern  sie  hatte  nur  das 
weibliche  ovulum  so  zu  verandern,  dass  der  Sohn  Gottes  welcher,  in  die  Form  der 
unbewussten  Seele  eingehend,  als  solche  zugleich  in's  ovulum  eingehen  wollte,  im 
ovulum  alien  zur  Bildung  einer  embryonischen  Leiblichkeit  nothigen  Stoffvorfand. 

1  Christliche  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  34:  Die  uofxprj  Gsov  gab  er  auf,  d.  h.  das  16a 
Sea>,  das  "auF  gleiche  Art  wie  Gott  sein,"  also  die  Ewigkeitsform,  und  nahm 
ilaftlr  die  Form  der  Menschheit  {6xij,uoc  dv^poDrtov).  Similarly,  Das  Dogma 
von  H.  A.,  i.  p.  191. 

2  Das  Dogma  von  keil.  Abendmahl,  ii.  p.  790. 


Modem  Kenotic   Theories.  1 55 

ful  man,  is  altogether  supernatural.  In  walking  on  the 
sea,  He  exhibited  a  wonder  of  applied  omnipresence.1  In 
the  use  of  these  powers  He  was  subject  to  His  Father's 
will;  but,  nevertheless,  they  were  inherent  in  His  person; 
He  had  free  control  over  them;  it  is  conceivable  that  He 
might  have  made  a  wrong  use  of  them,  and  herein  lay  the 
point  of  the  temptation  in  the  wilderness.2 

Ebrard  accepts  the  Chalcedonian  formula — two  natures 
in  one  person;  but  he  puts  his  own  meaning  on  the  word 
"  natures."  By  the  two  natures  he  understands  not  two 
parts  or  pieces,  two  subsistent  essences  united  to  each  other, 
but  two  abstracta  predicated  of  the  one  Christ;  two  aspects 
of  the  one  divine  human  person.  In  particular,  the  human 
nature  was  not  an  existing  thing,  but  only  a  manner  or 
form  of  being,  a  complex  of  properties.  The  thesis,  the 
Son  of  God  assumed  human  nature,  is  equivalent  to  this: 
that  the  Son  of  God,  giving  up  the  form  of  eternity  and  en- 
tering into  time-form,  and  beginning  to  exist  as  a  human  life- 
centre,  formed  for  Himself  out  of  this  life-centre  a  human- 
ity in  the  concrete  sense,  that  is,  a  human  body,  soul  and 
spirit,  or  all  momenta  and  essences  which  the  human  life- 
centre  needed  for  its  concrete  being  and  life.  Hence  the 
divine  nature  and  the  human  nature  stand  related  to  each 
other  as  essence  and  form:  Divine  nature  as  an  abstractum 
is  predicated  of  Christ,  because  He  is  the  eternal  Son  of  God 
entered  into  a  time-form  of  existence,  possessing  the  ethical 
and  metaphysical  attributes  of  God  (that  is,  God's  essence) 
in  a  finite  form  of  appearance.  Human  nature  is  predicated 
of  Christ,  because  He  has  assumed  the  existence  form  of 
humanity,  and  exists  as  centre  of  a  human  individuality 
with  human  soul,  spirit,  body,  development.  Christ  is 
therefore  not  partly  man,  partly  God,  but  wholly  man;  but 
if  the  question  be  asked,  who  is  this,  the  answer  must  be: 
He  is  the  Son  of  God,  who  has  by  a  free  act  denuded  Him- 

1  Dogmatik,  ii.  pp.  20,  29. 

5  Ibid.  ii.  pp.  30,  31.  The  view  stated  above,  Ebrard  defends  against  l-ange, 
who  maintains  [Leben  Jesu)  that  Jesus  was  conditioned  by  the  will  of  the  Father, 
not  merely  in  the  voluntary  use  of  His  miraculous  power,  but  in  the  possession  of 
the  power  itself,  just  like  any  of  the  prophets.  This  position  Ebrard  holds  to  be 
contrary  to  Scripture. 


1 56  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

self  of  His  world-governing,  eternal  form  of  being,  and 
entered  into  the  human  form  of  beiiiL,r.  It  is  a  divine  person 
who  has  made  Himself  a  human  person.1  Ebrard  reckons 
it  as  the  fault  of  Nestorius,  and  after  him  of  the  old  Luther- 
ans (whom  he  charges  with  Nestorianism,  resulting  in  the 
state  of  exaltation,  in  the  opposite  extreme  of  Eutychian- 
ism),  that  the  two  natures  of  Christ  were  treated  as  con- 
cretes. On  the  other  hand,  he  claims  for  the  old  Reformed 
Christologists  a  clear  understanding  of  the  true  state  of 
the  case.  They  meant  just  what  he  teaches  when  they  said, 
that  in  the  Incarnation  a  divine  person  was  not  united  with 
a  human  person,  or  a  divine  nature  with  a  human  nature; 
but  a  divine  person  assumed  a  human  nature.8  In  one 
respect  only  did  they  come  short,  viz.  in  reference  to  the 
question  how  the  concrete  consciousness  and  life  of  the 
person  Christ  are  to  be  conceived.  On  this  point,  accord- 
ing to  our  author,  the  Reformed  Church  has  never  attained 
to  a  clear  understanding;  the  reason,  in  his  judgment,  being, 
that  the  Christology  of  that  Church  has  failed  to  grasp  the 
distinction  between  the  eternity-form  (Ewigkeitsforni)  and 
the  time-form  {Zcitlichkcitsforni)  of  the  divine  essence.  The 
Reformed  theologians,  notwithstanding  their  controversy 
with  the  Lutherans,  came  at  last  to  think  of  the  incarnate 
Logos  as  world-governing,  and  possessing  omnipotence, 
omniscience,  and  omnipresence  in  reference  to  the  universe 
at  large, — a  view  which  came  practically  to  the  same  thing 
as  the  Lutheran  one.     All    the  difference  was    this:    the 

1  Dogmatik,  ii.  pp.  41,  42:  Die  nat.  div.  und  die  nat.  hum.  sind  also  nicht  zwei 
Subsistenzen  oder  Theile  in  Christo,  sondern  zwei  abstracta,  die  von  dem  Einen 
Christus  pradicirt  werden.  GOttliche  Natur  wind  von  ihm  pradicirt,  sofern  er  der 
in  die  Zeitiorm  eingegangne  ewige  Sohn  Gottes  ist,  und  die  ethischen  und  meta- 
physischen  Eigenschaften  Gottes,  d.  h.  das  Wesen  Gottes,  wiewohl  in  endlicher 
Erscheinungsform,  besitzt.  Menschliche  Natur  wird  von  ihm  ausgesagt,  wiefern 
er  die  Existenzform  der  Menschheit  angenommen  hat,  und  als  Centrum  einer 
menschlichen  Individualitat  mit  menschlicher  Seele,  Geist,  Leib,  Entwicklung 
existirt.  (Gottliche  Natur:  menschliche  Natur=Wesen:  Existenzialform.)  Er  ist 
also  nicht  theilweise  Mensch  und  theilweise  Gott,  sondern  er  ist  ganz  Mensch;  aber 
aufdieFrage:  Wer  ist  dieser?  (nicht,  was?)  heisst  der  Antwort:  der,  der dieser 
Mensch  ist,  ist  der  Sohn  Gottes,  der  sich  in  freiem  Akte  seiner  weltregierenden 
Ewigkeitsform  begeben,  und  in  die  menschliche  Seynsform  versetzt  hat.  Er  ist 
also  Eine  Person,  die.  persona  divina,  welche  sich  zu  einer  persona  humana  ge- 
macht  hat. 

1  Ibid.  ii.  p.  41. 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  i5t 

Lutheran  taught  that  the  human  nature  in  the  status  ex- 
inanitionis  either  renounced  or  did  not  exercise  omni- 
science, etc.,  while  the  Logos  at  the  same  time  retained  and 
used  it,  so  that  the  latter  knew  all,  while  the  former  did  not; 
the  Reformed,  on  the  other  hand,  taught  that  the  Logos 
incarnate  was  omniscient,  and  in  the  world-governing  sense, 
while  the  human  nature  was  not.  Both  positions  alike 
were  virtually  Nestorian.1  The  true  view  is,  that  the  powers 
of  the  eternal  Godhead  revealed  themselves  in  Christ,  not 
alongside  of  the  powers  of  His  humanity,  not  as  superhu- 
man, but  in  the  powers  of  His  humanity;  even  herein,  that 
His  human  powers  were  supernatural,  that  is,  exceeded  the 
capacities  of  nature  as  depraved  by  sin,  and  He  was  abso- 
lutely superior  to  this  depraved  nature,  so  that  when  and 
where  He  wished  to  work  it  formed  no  limit  to  His  power.2 
By  this  view  our  author  believes  the  problem  is  solved: 
how  the  divine  and  the  human  attributes  which  constitute 
the  two  natures  can  co-exist  in  the  same  person  without 
cancelling  each  other.  The  divine  attributes  remain  in  an 
applied  form,  and  in  that  form  they  are  truly  human.  Ap- 
plied omnipotence  is  simply  the  dominion  of  the  spirit  over 
nature,  which  belongs  to  the  idea  of  man.  Applied  omni- 
science is  the  dominion  of  the  spirit  over  the  objects  of 
knowledge,  to  which  man  was  originally  destined.  Applied 
omnipresence,  the  power  to  be  where  one  wills,  is  simply 
the  dominion  of  the  spirit  over  the  material  body,  which 
man  was  designed  to  attain;  the  body  in  its  ultimate  idea 
not  being  a  foreign  burden  subject  to  elementary  influences, 
but  a  free  projection  of  the  soul  in  space,  released  from  all 
subjection  to  the  elements,  to  death,  or  to  the  law  of  grav- 
ity.3 Whether  this  be  a  successful  solution  of  the  problem 
in  hand  or  not,  it  will  be  apparent  that  it  is  at  all  events  a 
very  different  view  of  the  historical  Christ  from  that  which 
we  had  last  under  consideration.  Gess'  view  of  Christ  is 
thoroughly  humanistic;  Ebrard's,  on  the  other  hand,  has  far 
more  of  the  divine  element  in  it,  and  wears  a  much  more 

1  Abendmahl,  ii.  p.  792.     Ebrard  gives  Zuingli  and  Olevian  credit  for  having 
clearer  views  than  most  of  the  Reformed  on  the  subject  of  the  divine  attributes. 
*  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  143. 
8  Abendmahl,  i.  pp.  192,  193.     Dogmatik,  ii.  pp.  28,  29. 


1 58  The  Htimiliation  of  Christ. 

decided  appearance  of  Apollinarism.  As  if  to  compensate 
for  the  Apollinarian  tendency  on  the  metaphysical  side, 
our  author  is  most  decidedly  anti-Apollinarian  in  the  view 
he  takes  of  the  ethical  aspect  of  Christ's  humanity,  ascribing 
to  the  incarnate  Logos  a  posse peccare,  representing  Him  as 
gaining  confirmation  in  obedience  by  the  practice  of  it  under 
trying  circumstances,  reaching  the  higher  freedom  through 
the  right  use  of  freedom  of  choice,  and  gaining  heavenly 
glory  strictly  as  a  reward  of  His  filial  virtue — all  this  being 
demanded  by  the  time-form  of  existence.1 

We  now  understand  in  what  sense  the  kenotic  theory  as 
taught  by  Ebrard  can  be  described  as  metamorphic.  The 
metamorphosis  consists  simply  in  an  exchange  of  the  eter- 
nal for  the  time-form  of  existence;  an  exchange  which, 
once  made,  is  perpetual.2  It  remains  to  be  added  that  this 
change  of  form  is  not  relative  merely,  but  absolute;  involv- 
ing the  absolute  and  perpetual  renunciation  of  the  eternal 
form  of  being,  not  simply  the  renunciation  of  it  with  ref- 
erence to  the  incarnate  life  of  the  Logos.  Our  author  is 
indeed  at  this  point  extremely  difficult  to  understand,  and 
I  am  doubtful  whether  the  words  just  used  correctly  de- 
scribe his  position,  or  even  whether  his  position  be  a  self- 
consistent  one.  For,  on  the  one  hand,  he  says  in  one 
place  that  there  is  nothing  in  Scripture  to  countenance  the 
idea  that  the  Logos  retained  the  form  of  eternity  on  enter- 
ing into  the  time-form,  and  while  He  was  in  Christ,  gov- 
erned the  world  over  and  above.3  But,  on  the  other  hand, 
he  recognises  it  as  a  part  of  the  Christological  problem  to 
be  solved:  how  can  the  Logos,  conscious  of  Himself  as  the 
eternal,  be  also  conscious  of  the  man  Jesus  existing  in  time 
as  Himself?  and,  on  the  other  hand,  how  can  the  man 
Jesus,  existing  in  time,  be  conscious  of  the  eternal  Logos 

1  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  22. 

?  Ibid.  ii.  p.  37:  Form  der  Menschheit  und  Form  der  Evvigkeit  (im  Sinn  voa 
Ueberzeitlichkeit)  schliessen  sich  schlechthin  aus;  Christus  hat  die  letztre  fur  immer 
aufgegeben,  die  erstre  fur  immer  angenommen,  und  der  Uebergang  aus  der  unter 
dem  Tod  geknechteten  Menschheit  in  die  vom  Tode  befreite,  verklarte,  hat  im 
Verhaltniss  seiner  gOttlichen  Natur  zu  seiner  menschlichen  nichts  geaiidert. 

3  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  35:  Die  h.  Schrift  weiss  nichts  davon,  dass  der  \6yoZ  die 
Form  der  Ewigkeit  beibehalten  habe,  und  wahrend  er  in  Christo  war,  nebenbei 
auch  nod  die  Welt  regiert  habe,  sondern  er  ward  Mensch. 


Modem  Kenotic   Theories.  i5q 

as  Himself?  in  other  words,  is  a  unity  of  consciousness  be- 
tween the  eternal  and  the  incarnate  Logos  conceivable  ? ' 
The  same  problem  is  also  put  in  this  form:  How  is  a  per- 
sonal unity  between  the  world-governing  Son  of  God  in  the 
Trinity  and  the  incarnate  Son  of  God,  who  has  given  up  the 
form  of  eternity,  possible,  the  one  being  world-governing, 
omniscient,  etc.,  while  the  other  is  not?3  It  is  true  the 
problem  is  regarded  as  a  psychological  one,  and  may  be 
said  to  have  for  its  aim  to  demonstrate  the  possibility  of 
conscious  personal  identity  surviving  the  change  from  the 
eternal  to  the  time-form  of  existence.  But  the  very  terms 
in  which  the  problem  is  stated  seem  to  show  that  the 
eternity-form  is  not  thought  of  as  having  ceased  to  exist. 
Indeed,  it  is  expressly  admitted  that  such  language  is 
meaningless  with  reference  to  the  Eternal.  Speaking 
strictly,  we  ought  not  to  say  the  Son  of  God  has  given  up 
the  Eivigkeitsform,  for  in  eternity  there  is  no  "  has  "  and 
no  "  given  up."  Words  implying  tense  are  inapplicable  to 
eternity,  whose  relation  to  time  is  not  such  that  one  can 
say  eternity  is  before  time,  or  after  it,  or  during  it.3  Then, 
further,  supposing  the  psychological  problem  to  be  satis- 
factorily solved  for  the  period  of  Christ's  mature  manhood, 
that  is,  granting  that  then  the  man  Jesus  could  be  conscious 
of  His  identity  with  the  eternal,  world-governing  Logos, 
which  is  all  that  is  claimed  as  made  out,4  what  of  the  period 
of  immaturity,  of  childhood  ?  With  reference  to  this  pe- 
riod, the  author  remarks  that  identity  of  person  is  not  to 
be  confounded  with  unity  or  continuity  of  consciousness.6 
Perfectly  true;  but  the  question  is  not  as  to  identity  of  the 
person,  but  as  to  the  combination  in  the  same  person  of 

1  Abendmahl,  i.  p.  186:  Ob  sich  der  seiner  als  eines  ewigen,  bewusste  Logos, 
des  zeitlich  existirenden  Menschen  als  seiner  selbst  bewusst  seyn  konne,  und  ob  der 
zeitlich  existirende  Mensch  Jesus  sich  des  ewigen  Logos  als  seiner  selbst  bewusst 
seyn  konne;  oh  also  eine  Einheit  des  Bewusstseins  zwischen  dem  ewigen  und  dem 
menschgewordenen  Logos  denkbar  sei. 

2  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  144:  Wie  ist  zwischen  dem  weltregierenden  Sohn  Gottes  in 
der  Trinitat  und  dem  menschgewordenen  Sohn  Gottes,  der  die  Ewigkeitsform  auf- 
gegeben  hat,  eine  personliche  Einheit  denkbar  ?  Jener  ist  weltregierend  allwissend, 
dleser  nicht. 

3  Ibid.  ii.  p.  146.  4  Ibid.  ii.  p.  145. 

s  See  Appendix,  Note  D,  tor  an  account  of  Ebrard's  method  of  solving  th« 
problem. 


160  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

two  modes  of  existence;  a  question  which  must  surely  be 
answered  in  the  affirmative,  if  it  be  admitted  that  the  Lo 
gos  was  self-conscious  even  when  the  child  Jesus  was  ut- 
terly unconscious.  This  position  Ebrard,  so  far  as  appears, 
does  not  call  in  question,  and  therefore  it  might  be  legiti- 
mate to  represent  his  theory  as  one  which  teaches  only  a 
relative  metamorphosis  of  the  Logos, — a  change  in  the  form 
of  existence  which  is  after  all  not  so  much  an  exchange,  as 
the  adding  of  one  form  of  existence  to  another.  Such  is  the 
sense  in  which  the  theory  has  been  understood  by  some  of 
its  author's  own  countrymen,1  and  the  correctness  of  the 
interpretation  might  with  some  confidence  be  inferred  from 
the  fact  that  a  double  existence  is  expressly  taught  by  other 
writers  whose  Christological  views  come  nearest  to  the 
Ebrardian  type.  Nevertheless  it  is  not  advisable  to  force 
on  any  author  a  doctrine  which  he  seems  disinclined  to 
hold,  and  therefore  we  must  reckon  it  as  the  character- 
istic of  the  present  type  of  kenosis,  that  it  teaches  an  ab- 
solute and  perpetual  exchange  of  the  Eternal  for  the  time- 
form  of  existence,  as  necessarily  involved  in  the  idea 
of  Incarnation. 

(4)  Martensen?  on  the  other  hand,  is  beyond  all  doubt 
an  advocate  of  a  real  yet  only  relative  kenosis.  This  dis- 
tinguished Danish  theologian,  in  whose  writings  are  finely 
blended  philosophic  insight  and  poetic  grace,  distinguishes 
between  the  Logos  revelation  and  the  Christ  revelation. 
The  revelation  of  the  Son  of  God  in  the  fulness  of  time  implies 

1  By  Gess,  at  least,  who,  having  quoted  a  passage  from  Schoberlein  (Grttnd- 
lehren  des  JJei/s),  to  the  effect  that  the  Logos  incarnate  has  a  double  existence, 
and  that  we  must  recognise  at  once  a  real  kenosis  and  a  possession,  yea,  a  use 
without  concealment  of  the  divine  glory,  adds  in  a  note:  "  Aehnlich  Ebrard  in  der 
Dogmatik."  Die  Lehre  von  der  Person  Ckristi,  p.  390.  On  the  other  hand, 
Hofmann,  Schriftbeweis,  ii.  p.  24,  seems  to  understand  the  exchange  of  eternity- 
form  with  the  time-form  taught  by  Ebrard  as  an  absolute  one.  With  reference, 
and  in  opposition,  to  Ebrard's  view  he  remarks:  Aber  auch  so  ist  es  nicht,  dass 
er  die  Ewigkeitsform  mit  der  Zeitlichkeitsform  vertauscht  hat,  sondern  aus  seinem 
geschichtlichen  Stande  der  Ueberweltlichkeit,  des  weltbeherrschenden  Konnens 
und  Wollens  und  Gegenwartigseins  ist  er,  der  hier  und  dort  gleich  Ewige,  in  die 
Innerweltlichkeit,  in  die  menschliche  Umschranktheit  des  Daseyns  und  Wissens 
und  Konnens  eingegangen,  die  eine  geschichtliche  Bethatigung  seines  ewigen  We- 
sens  mit  der  andern  vertauschend. 

2  Die  Christ liche  Dogmatik,  Deutsche  Ausgabe,  Berlin  1856,  pp.  221-272. 


Modem  Kenotic   Theories.  161 

a  pre-existence,  which  does  not  signify  merely  an  original 
being  in  the  Father,  but  also  an  original  being  in  the  world. 
As  the  Mediator  between  the  Father  and  the  world,  it  be- 
longs to  the  essence  of  the  Son  to   live  not  only  in  the 
Father,  but  also  in  the  world.     As  "  the  heart  of  God  the 
Father,"  He  is  at  the  same  time  the  eternal  heart  of  the 
world,  through  which  the  divine  life  flows  into  the  creation. 
As  the  Logos  of  the  Father,  He  is  at  the  same  time  the 
eternal  world-Logos,  through  whom  the  divine  light  rays 
forth  into  the  creation.     He  is  ground  and  source  of  all 
reason  in   the  creation,  whether   in  man   or  in   angel,   in 
Greek  or  in  Jew.     He  is  the  principle  of  law  and  promise 
in  the  Old  Testament,  the  eternal  light  which  shines  in  the 
darkness  of  heathendom;  all    holy  germs  of  truth  to   be 
found  in  the  heathen  world  have  been  sown  in  the  souls  of 
men  by  Him.     He  is  the  eternal  principle  of  providence, 
amid  the  confusion  of  the  world's  life;  all  forces  of  nature, 
all  ideas  and  angels,  being  ministering  instruments  of  His 
all-ordering,  all-guiding  will.     But,  in  His  pre-existence, 
He  is  only  the  essential,  not  the  real  Mediator  between 
God  and  the  creature;  the  contrast  between  Creator  and 
created  is  cancelled  in  essence  only,  not  in  existence;  the 
variance  between  God  and  the  sinful  world  is  done  away 
with  only  in  idea,  not  in  life.     Therefore  it  was  needful 
that  the  pre-existent  Logos  should  become  man,  and  sup~ 
plement  the  Logos-revelation  by  a  Christ-revelation.1     The 
novel  element  in  the  latter  is  such  a  union  of  the  divine 
and  human  natures  that  a  man  appears  on  the  earth  as  the 
self-revelation  of  the  divine  Logos,  as  the  God-man?     The 
eternal   omnipresent  Word   became   flesh,  was   born    into 
time.     That,  however,  does  not  mean  that,  with  the  Incar- 
nation, the  eternal  Logos  ceased  to  exist  in  His  general 
world-revelation,  or  that  the  Logos,  as  self-conscious  per- 
sonal Being,  was  inclosed  in  His  mother's  womb,  was  born 
as    an  infant,  grew  in  knowledge;  for  such  a  representa- 
tion  is  incompatible  with   the    idea  of  birth.      Temporal 
birth  necessarily  implies  a  progress  from  the  unconscious 
to  the  conscious,  from  possibility  to  reality,  from  germ  to 
mature  organization;  and  any  other   mode  of  conceiving 

1  Dogmatik,  pp.  221,  222.  -  Ibid.  p.  224. 


1 62  The  Humiliation  of  Girist. 

the  birth  of  the  God-man  must  be  characterized  as  doketic 
The  birth  of  the  Logos  means  that  He  enters  into  the 
bosom  of  humanity  as  possibility,  as  a  holy  seed,  that  He 
may  arise  within  the  human  race  as  a  mediating,  redeem- 
ing', human  revelation;  that  the  divine  fulness  individual- 
izes itself  in  a  single  human  life,  so  that  the  entire  sum  of 
holy  powers  is  herein  involved.  That  the  Son  of  God  was 
in  His  mother's  womb  not  as  a  self-conscious  divine  Ego, 
but  as  an  immature  unborn  child,  is  indicated  by  the  words 
of  the  angel  to  Mary:  "  That  holy  thing  which  shall  be 
born  of  thee  shall  be  called  the  Son  of  God."1  But  as  that 
holy  thing,  in  the  course  of  growth,  became  conscious  of 
Himself  as  a  human  Ego,  in  the  same  measure  He  became 
conscious  of  His  Godhead,  and  knew  Himself  as  a  divine 
human  Ego,  because  the  fulness  of  Godhead  was  the  life- 
ground  of  His  human  life;  knew  Himself  as  not  only  hav- 
ing part  in  the  divine  Logos,  but  as  the  divine-human  con- 
tinuation of  the  everlasting  life  of  Godhead.  Hence,  while 
Christ  said,  "  I  and  the  Father  are  one," — an  affirmation 
of  unity  implying  a  personal  distinction, — He  never  said, 
"  I  and  the  Logos  are  one,"  because  He  was  the  Logos 
revealing  Himself  in  human  form.1 

In  view  of  these  statements,  it  is  easy  to  see  in  what  sense 
the  kcnosis  is  to  be  understood.  It  means  that  the  Logos, 
qua  incarnate,  possesses  His  Godhead  in  the  limited  forms 
of  human  consciousness.  He  is  true  God;  but,  in  the  Christ 
revelation,  the  true  Godhead  is  never  outside  the  true  hu- 
manity. It  is  not  the  naked  God  we  see  in  Christ,  but  the 
fulness  of  Godhead  within  the  compass  of  humanity;  not 
the  properties  of  the  divine  nature  in  their  unlimited  world- 
infinitude,  but  these  properties  transformed  into  properties 
of  human  nature;  the  omnipresence  becoming  the  blessed 
presence  of  Him  who  said:  "  Whoso  seeth  me  seeth  the 
Father;  "  the  omniscience  becoming  the  divine-human  wis- 
dom which  reveals  to  the  simple  the  mysteries  of  the  king- 
dom; the  omnipotence  becoming  the  world-conquering  and 

1  Luke  1.  35:  to  yevvcj/.i£vov  ayiov  (neuter). 

2  Dogmatik,  pp.  244,  245:  Obgleich  daher  Christus  zeugt:  "Ich  und  der  Vater 
sind  Eins,"  sagt  er  doch  niemals:  Ich  und  der  Logos  sind  Eins.  Denn  er  ist  die 
menschliche  Se/6stoffenba.r\ing  des  gottlichen  Logos. 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  163 

completing  might  of  holiness  and  love  of  Him,  to  whom  was 
given  all  power  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Christ,  in  pos- 
session of  these  transformed  attributes,  is  not  less  God  than 
the  Logos  in  His  universal  world-revelation;  for  the  Deity 
of  the  Son  is  the  Deity  of  the  Mediator  God,  or  of  God  as 
the  revealer  of  God;  and  in  no  form  is  the  Son  in  a  truer 
sense  the  Mediator  and  the  Revealer  of  God,  than  in  the 
form  of  the  Son  of  man.1  And  while  the  kenosis  is  per- 
fectly compatible  with  essential  Deity  even  in  the  Son  of 
man,  it  does  not  exclude  the  continued  existence  of  the 
Logos  as  the  Mediator  and  Revealer  for  the  world  at  large. 
As  the  omnipresent  Logos,  the  Son  of  God  continues  to 
shine  through  the  whole  creation.2  He  lives  a  double  life: 
as  the  pure  divine  Logos,  He  works  throughout  the  king- 
dom of  nature,  preparing  the  conditions  for  the  revelation 
of  His  all-completing  love;  as  Christ,  He  works  through 
the  kingdom  of  grace  and  redemption,  and  indicates  His 
consciousness  of  personal  identity  in  the  two  spheres,  by 
referring  to  His  pre-existence,  which  to  His  human  con- 
sciousness takes  the  form  of  a  recollection? 

On  two  points  Martensen  does  not  fully  explain  himself: 
the  human  soul  of  Christ;  and  the  question,  How  is  the 
duality  in  the  life  of  the  Logos  to  be  reconciled  with  the 
unity  of  His  personality  ?  As  to  the  former,  though  it  is 
nowhere  said,  it  seems  to  be  tacitly  implied,  that  the  incar- 
nate Logos  took  in  Christ  the  place  of  a  human  soul.  The 
latter  topic  also  the  author  passes  over  in  discreet  silence, 
thinking  it  better,  possibly,  to  attempt  no  solution,  than  to 
offer  his  readers  such  an  abstruse  speculation  as  that  by 
which  Ebrard  endeavours  to  explain  how  the  Eternal  and 

1  Dogmatik,  pp.  247,  248. 

2  Ibid.  p.  246:  Als  der  allgegenwartige  Logos  die  ganze  Schopfung  durch- 
leuchtet. 

3  Ibid.  p.  247:  Wohl  aber  mtissen  wir  sagen  dass  der  Sohn  Gottes  in  der 
Oekonomie  des  Vaters  ein  doppeltes  Dasein  fllhrt,  dass  er  ein  Doppelleben  lebt  in 
weltschopferischer  und  weltvollendender  Thatigkeit.  Als  der  reine  Gottheitslogos 
durchwirkt  er  in  Alles  erflillender  Gegenwart  das  Reich  der  Natur,  wirkt  die  Vor 
aussetzungen  und  Bedingungen  fur  die  Offenbarung  seiner  Alles  vollendenden 
Liebe.  Als  Christus  durchwirkt  er  das  Reich  der  Gnade,  der  Erlosung,  und  Vol- 
lendung,  und  weist  zurlick  auf  seiner  Praexistenz.  See  also  p.  250,  where  Christ 
b  spoken  of  as  recollecting  His  pre-existence*  Erinnert  er  sich  seiner  ewigen  Pra. 
existenz  und  seines  Aus  'angs  vom  Vater. 


164  TJic   Humiliation  of  Christ. 

the  Incarnate  Logos  can  have  an  identical  consciousness.1 
He  animadverts  on  the  dualism,  not  to  speak  of  the  mon- 
strosity, introduced  into  the  person  of  Christ  by  the  old 
orthodox  Christology,  according  to  which  Christ,  as  a  child 
in  the  cradle,  secretly  carried  on  the  government  of  the  world 
with  the  omniscience  that  work  required;  while,  at  the  same 
time,  in  His  human  nature  He  grew  in  knowledge  and  wis- 
dom. By  such  a  grotesque  representation,  he  contends, 
the  unity  of  the  person  is  annulled,  two  parallel  series  of 
conscious  states  which  never  unite  are  introduced,  and  the 
result  is  in  effect  a  Christ  with  two  heads.3  But  the  friends 
of  antiquated  orthodoxy  might  turn  round  and  ask:  What 
better  are  we  on  your  theory  ?  You  say  we  teach  a  Christ 
with  two  non-communicating  or  non-coincident  conscious- 
nesses, or  with  two  heads;  you  teach  a  Logos  with  a  double 
life:  one  in  the  world  at  large,  another  in  the  man  Jesus; 
infinite  in  the  former,  limited,  self-emptied,  in  the  latter; 
a  mere  unconscious  possibility  to  begin  with,  and  never  ex- 
ceeding the  measures  of  humanity:  show  us  the  possibility 
of  such  a  double  life,  and  its  compatibility  with  a  single 
personality.  This  demand  some  believers  in  a  real  but 
relative  kenosis  treat  as  legitimate,  and  attempt  to  satisfy. 
Martensen  seems  to  have  preferred  to  regard  the  problem 
as  a  mystery,  deeming  the  kenosis  in  the  sense  explained 
an  indubitable  Scripture  doctrine  and  historical  fact,  and 
the  continued  activity  of  the  world-sustaining  Logos  an 
obvious  corollary  from  His  distinctive  function  as  the  Me- 
diator and  Revealer  in  relation  to  the  universe,  and  not 
holding  himself  bound  to  reconcile  the  two,  any  more  than 
to  clear  up  in  a  perfectly  satisfactory  manner  any  other 
mystery  of  the  Christian  faith.8 

Such  are  the  leading  forms  which  the  modern  kenotic 
theory  has  assumed  in  the  hands  of  its  advocates.  In  pro- 
ceeding now  to  a  critical  estimate  of  this  theory,  certain 

1  See  Appendix,  Note  D. 

?  Dogtnatik,  p.  249:  Die  Einheit  der  Person  wird  aufgehoben,  und  wir  be- 
kommen  in  Christo  zvvei  verschiedene  Bewusstseinsreihen,  die  niemals  zusammeu 
gehen  werden.  Wir  bekommen  gleichsam  einen  Christus  mit  zwei  KOpfen,  eic 
Bild,  welches  nicht  nur  den  Eindruck  des  Uebermenschlichen  sondern  des  Mon 
strosen  macht,  und  dem  die  ethische  Wirkung  fehlt. 

'    Vid.  Appendix,  Note  E,  for  literature  belonging  to  the  Martensen  type. 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  i65 

general  considerations  suggest  themselves,  which  may  here 
be  submitted  by  way  of  preface. 

I.  The  theory  in  question,  whether  tenable  or  not,  is  at 
all  events  animated  by  a  genuinely  orthodox  interest;  as, 
indeed,  might  be  inferred  from  a  rapid  glance  at  the  roll  of 
its  supporters,  which  includes,  in  addition  to  those  already 
mentioned,  the  names  of  such  men  as  Delitzsch  and  Hof- 
mann,  whose  orthodoxy,  in  the  catholic  sense,  is  above 
suspicion.  Kenosis,  in  all  its  forms  presupposes  the  Church 
doctrines  of  the  Trinity  and  the  pre-existence  of  the  Lo- 
gos. The  very  aim  of  the  theory  is  to  show  how  the  eter- 
nally pre-existent  Son  of  God,  second  person  of  the  Trin- 
ity, by  a  free  self-conscious  act  of  self-exinanition,  made 
Himself  capable  of  Incarnation  after  the  manner  recorded  in 
the  Gospels.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  some  advocates  of  the 
kenotic  Christology  have  deemed  it  necessary  to  lay  a  foun- 
dation for  the  self-emptying  of  the  Logos  in  a  conception 
of  the  Trinity,  or  of  the  Trinitarian  Process,  as  it  is  called, 
which  involves  a  Subordinatian  view  of  the  relation  of  the 
Son  to  the  Father.1  But  the  abler  or  more  cautious  mem- 
bers of  the  school  avoid  this  opinion  in  their  statement  of 
the  doctrine; 2  and  there  does  not  appear  to  be  any  neces- 
sary connection  between  the  kenosis  implied  in  the  Incar- 
nation, and  an  eternal  inequality  of  the  persons  within  the 
immanent  Trinity.  In  every  Christological  theory  it  is  a 
problem  why  the  Son  and  not  the  Father  became  incar- 
nate; and  all  theories  alike  are  liable  to  err  in  the  solution 
of  the  problem,  if  they  attempt  it  and  do  not  prefer  to  let 
it  alone.3 

2.  This  theory  further  proposes  to  itself  most  legitimate 
and  even  praiseworthy  ends.  It  may  be  said  to  have  two 
ends  in  view,  one  religious,  the  other  scientific — to  do  full 
justice  to  the  divine  Love  as  manifested  in  the  Incarnation, 

1  E.  g.  Gess,  Liebner.  2  E.  g.  Hofmann,  Delitzsch. 

3  Schneckenburger  thinks  that  the  kenotic  theory,  if  logically  carried  out  to  its 
ultimate  consequences,  involves  the  dissolution  of  the  Trinity.  Vom  doppelten 
Stande  Christi,  Beilage,  p.  196  ff.,  being  a  review  of  Thomasius'  Beitrage.  He 
says,  p.  201:  Kurz  ich  sehe  nicht  ein,  wie  das  Trinitatsdogma  bestehen  kann  mit 
der  vorgeschlagenen  Korrektur  (*.  e.  the  rectification  of  the  old  Lutheran  Chris- 
tology  by  the  Thomasian  doctrine  of  kenosis).  But  the  opinion  is  not  supported 
by  argument. 


1 66  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

and  to  give  such  a  view  of  the  person  of  Christ  as  shall  al- 
low His  humanity  to  remain  in  all  its  historical  truth.  The 
former  aim  is  very  apparent  in  the  Christological  utter- 
ances of  the  father  of  modern  kenosis,  Zinzendorf.1  The 
celebrated  founder  of  the  Moravian  brotherhood  went  great 
lengths  in  the  assertion  of  Christ's  likeness  to  His  brethren. 
Living  in  a  time  when  men  were  ashamed  of  the  humilia- 
tion of  Christ,  and  gave  prominence  only  to  what  was  ra- 
tional and  intelligible,  and  in  a  worldly  sense  respectable, 
in  Christianity,  he  deemed  it  his  vocation  to  glory  in  Christ's 
passion,  and  to  assert  with  all  possible  emphasis  the  Incar- 
nation as  a  lowering  of  Himself  in  love,  on  the  part  of  God 
the  Son,  to  the  level  of  humanity.  This  self-lowering  he 
represented  as  taking  place  to  such  an  extent,  that  Ben- 
gel,  with  every  desire  to  give  an  impartial  account  of  his 
doctrinal  system,  spoke  of  him  as  a  new  Unitarian,  who, 
while  differing  widely  from  other  Unitarians,  in  assigning 
to  the  Son  not  only  a  place  in  the  Trinity,  but  a  monopoly 
of  divine  functions,  creation,  redemption,  and  sanctifica- 
tion,  came  by  so  much  the  nearer  to  them  on  the  other 
side,  as  one  who  journeys  towards  the  east,  going  as  far  as 
he  can,  at  length  comes  round  to  the  west.2  Jesus,  ac- 
cording to  Zinzendorf,  while  never  ceasing  to  be  God,  was 
in  all  matters  to  be  considered  as  a  simple  man;  and  all 
our  comfort  is  to  be  derived  from  His  humanity,  viewed  not 
only  as  like  us  in  its  weakness,  but  as  characterized  by  a 
maximum  of  weakness,  so  that  the  most  miserable  creature 
can  think  of  Christ  as  weaker  than  himself.  The  Son  of 
God  incarnate  thought  of  Himself  as  a  man;  if  the  thought, 
"  I  am  God,"  entered  into  His  mind,  it  was  only  in  transitu, 
as  a  man  of  thirty  years  may  remember,  in  a  dream,  some- 
thing he  had  said  or  done  when  a  child  of  two  or  three 
years.3  Thus  far  did  He  carry  the  business  of  self-empty- 
ing; and  in  carrying  it  so  far,  He  but  glorified  His  love. 
For  the  greatest  thing  in  the  Saviour  was  not  His  God- 
head, or  His  majesty,  or  His  miracles,  but  His  becoming 
freely  so  little?     Thus  thought  the  Saviour  Himself  before 

1  See  Appendix,  Note  G. 

!  Abriss  der  so  genannten  Brildergemeine,  pp.  28-41. 

3  Plitt,  Zitizendorf  s  Theologie  Dargestellt,  Zweiter  Band,  p.  171. 

*  Ibid.  p.  161,  where  he  quotes  from  Zinzendorf  a  passage  respecting  the  sur 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  167 

He  came  in  the  flesh.  He  esteemed  it  a  favour  conferred 
on  Him  by  His  Father  to  be  permitted  to  become  man,  that 
He  might  die  for  a  sinful  world.  Yea,  He  reckoned  it  an 
additional  favour,  that,  in  order  to  become  man,  it  was 
necessary  that  He  should  go  out  of  the  Godhead,  and  at 
least  for  an  hour,  for  a  moment,  know  what  it  is  to  be  God- 
forsaken.1 In  more  recent  writers  we  miss  both  the  elo- 
quence and  the  extravagance  characteristic  of  Zinzendorf, 
in  proclaiming  the  most  thoroughgoing  kenosis  as  the  glori- 
fication of  divine  love.  Modern  kenosists  are  influenced 
much  more  by  the  scientific  than  by  the  religious  interest, 
which  in  the  case  of  Zinzendorf  was  the  supreme,  if  not 
the  exclusive,  object  of  consideration.  Nevertheless,  even 
with  regard  to  the  former,  there  is  truth  in  the  remark  of 
Dorner,  that  the  Christology  of  which  Zinzendorf  may  be 
regarded  as  the  forerunner,  represents  a  religious  trait,  viz, 
the  desire  to  conceive  the  divine  Love  as  having  become 
as  like  to,  as  intimately  united  with,  men  as  possible.2 
And  in  this  respect  the  Christology  in  question,  under  any 
of  its  forms,  commends  itself  to  our  sympathy.  It  is  im- 
possible not  to  have  a  kindly  feeling  towards  a  Christolog- 
ical  theory  which  is  earnestly  bent  on  making  the  exina- 
nition  of  the  Son  of  God  a  great  sublime  moral  reality.  An 
error  is  readily  pardoned  in  a  theory  animated  by  such  an 
evangelic  aim.  Even  when  the  resulting  view  of  Christ's 
person  wears  a  suspicious  resemblance  to  that  given  in  the 
Socinian  theory,  we  are  conscious  of  a  sympathy  with  the 
one  which  we  cannot  have  for  the  other.  We  remember 
that  the  kenotic  Christ,  however  like  the  Socinian  in  other 
respects,  is  the  result  of  an  act  of  free  grace,  on  the  part  of 
a  Divine  Being  emptying  Himself  of  His  divinity  as  far  a» 
possible,  in  order  that  He  might  become  flesh  and  dwell 

prise  of  contemporaries,  at  seeing  a  people  (the  brethren)  to  whom  the  greatest 
thing  in  Christ  was,  that  He  became  so  little  (das  ihnen  das  GrOsste  ist,  dass  der 
Heiland  so  klein  gewesen  ist). 

1  Plitt,  i.  p.  272:  Die  Concession,  die  Willigkeit  des  Vaters,  dass  der  Sohn  hat 
kOnnen  Mensch  werden,  dass  er  hat  kOnnen  sein  Lcben  lassen,  das  ist  das  Prasent 
das  ihm  der  Vater  gethan  hat.  Er  sieht  es  als  eine  neue  Gnade  an,  dass  er  hat 
diirfen,  um  Mensch  zu  werden,  aus  der  Gottheit  herausgehen  und  zum  wenigsteii 
eine  Stunde,  einen  Augenblick  erfahren,  was  das  heisset,  von  Gott  verlassen  sein. 

5  Dorner,  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  p.  258. 


1 68  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

among  men  full  of  grace  and  truth.  The  historical  phe- 
nomenon may  be  to  a  large  extent  the  same  in  either  sys- 
tem, but  the  moral  and  theological  significance  of  the  phe- 
nomenon is  toto  coelo  different.  The  Christ  of  the  kenosis 
is  God  self-humbled  to  man's  level;  the  Socinian  Christ  is 
man  exalted  to  the  highest  human  level.  The  conceptions 
of  the  Deity  cherished  by  the  two  systems  are  equally 
diverse.  The  God  of  the  one  system  is  self-sacrificing  love; 
the  God  of  the  other  system  is  a  Being  who  cannot  descend 
from  the  altitude  of  His  metaphysical  majesty.1 

The  scientific  aim  of  this  theory  is  equally  entitled  to 
respect,  its  declared  purpose  being  to  reconcile  the  doc- 
trine of  Christ's  person  with  the  facts  of  the  gospel  history; 
or  more  definitely,  so  to  conceive  the  Incarnation,  as  to 
leave  room  for  a  real  progressive  human  development,  in- 
tellectually and  morally,  not  less  than  physically.  This 
purpose  all  Christological  theories  profess  to  keep  in  view, 
and  all  have  tried  in  one  way  or  another  to  satisfy  its  re- 
quirements. The  attempts  have  been  varied  in  their  nature, 
but  all  have  involved  a  more  or  less  distinct  recognition  of 
the  need  of  a  kenosis  of  some  kind  on  the  part  of  the  Logos, 
in  order  that  the  truth  of  Christ's  humanity  may  remain 
unimpaired.  Irenaeus  taught  a  rest  or  quiescence  of  the 
Logos  in  connection  with  the  temptations,  crucifixion,  and 
death  of  Christ;  2  Ambrose  spoke  of  the  Logos  withdraw- 
ing Himself  from  activity,  that  He  might  be  subject  to 
infirmity.3  Hilary  conceived  of  the  Logos  incarnate  as 
having  exchanged  the  form  of  God  for  the  form  of  a  servant, 
and  in  the  assumed  form  tempering  Himself  to  conformity 
•with  the  human  habit,  lest  the  infirmity  of  the  assumed 
nature  should  be  unable  to  bear  the  power  and  infinitude 
tof  the  divine  nature.4     Even  Cyril,  while  rejecting  a  meta- 

1  Ritschl  characterizes  the  kenotic  theory  as  verseh&mter  Socinianismus. 

5  H6nsp  yap  r/v  avfipooTtoi,  'iva  7teipa6(jp,  outgo  xai  \6yoS,  'iva 
8ola.6hrjj-  Tf<5vxa%ovToZ  fxiv  zov  Xoyov  tv  too  nsipdZs^ai  .  .  .  xai 
6ravpov6(jai,  xai  a.7torivr/6HEiv.     Contra  Haereses,  lib.  iii.  cap.  xix.  3. 

3  Exinanivit  se,  hoc  est,  potestatem  suam  ab  opere  retraxit,  ut  humiliatus  otiosa 
virtute  infirmari  videretur.  —  Comment,  in  Epistolam  ad  Philipp. 

4  In  forma  Dei.manens  formam  servi  assumpsit,  nvn  demutatus  sed  se  ipsum 
exinaniens,  et  intra  se  latens,  et  intra  suam  ip-e  vacuefactus  potestatem;  dum  se 
usque  ad  formam  temperat  habitus  huniam.  ne  potentem  immensamque  naturam 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  169 

morphic  Incarnation,  kenosis  in  that  sense  being,  in  his 
view,  excluded  by  the  6ht}vqo6i%  ascribed  by  the  evangelist 
to  the  incarnate  Logos,  in  the  same  text  in  which  he  rep- 
resents Him  as  becoming  flesh,1  nevertheless  did  homage 
to  the  demands  of  the  kenosis,  by  admitting  that  the  super- 
human endowments  of  the  man  Jesus  must  at  all  events  be 
carefully  concealed,  that  He  might  at  least  seem  to  be  what 
in  truth  He  was  not,  and  wear  to  spectators  the  guise  and 
fashion  of  a  child,  a  boy,  and  a  man,  while  His  inward  habit 
was  that  of  a  God.2  The  Lutherans  yielded  reluctant 
obedience  to  the  requirements  of  history,  by  ascribing  to 
the  man  Christ  Jesus  a  possession  without  use  of  divine 
attributes;  while  the  Reformed,  on  the  other  hand,  made 
room  for  growth  and  experience  in  the  life  of  the  Saviour, 
by  so  conceiving  of  the  union  of  natures,  that  the  human 
nature  should  not  be  overlaid  or  swallowed  up  by  the 
divine.3  In  recent  times  the  pressure  of  the  problem  ha» 
been  felt  more  heavily  than  ever;  and  men  of  all  schools, 
believing  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  have  been  of  one 
mind  as  to  the  necessity  of  such  a  construction  of  Christ's 
person  as,  while  recognising  His  Godhead,  shall  nowise 
infringe  on  the  integrity  and  full  reality  of  His  humanity. 
All,  as  already  remarked,4  have  not  followed  the  same 
method  in  the  work  of  reconstruction.  Some  are  content 
with  the  old  Reformed  theory  carefully  re-stated  in  the 
light  of  modern  requirements,  teaching  a  duality,  not  in 
the  consciousness  of  the  God-man,  but  in  the  life  of  the 
Logos;  distributing  the  mens  duplex  between  the  Logos 
as  a  person  in  the  Trinity  and  the  concrete  God-man,  so 
far  as  that  divine  person  exhibits  and  develops  Himself 
in  Jesus  in  a  human  manner,  or  as  a  human  individual,  being 
the  life  principle  of  this  man,  sustaining  Him,  conditioning 
His  existence  and    personality,  dwelling  in   Him    by  the 

assumptae  humilitatis  non  ferret  infirmitas,  sed  in  tantum  se  virtue  incircumscripta 
moderaretur,  in  quantum  oporteret  earn  usque  ad  patientiam  connexi  sibi  corporis 
obedire.  De  Trinitate,  lib.  xi.  48.  The  exchange  of  forms,  though  not  taught 
here,  is  asserted  in  other  passages;  see  Appendix,  Note  A,  Lect.  i.;  also  Thoma- 
sius,  ii.  p.  172  sqq.  Thomasius,  without  good  ground,  claims  Hilary  as  a  sup- 
porter of  kenosis  in  his  own  sense. 

1  See  Appendix,  Note  G.  2  gee  Lecture  ii. 

3  See  Lecture  iii.  <  See  x>.  1-56. 


170  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

Holy  Spirit.1  Others  teach  what  may  be  called  a  gradual 
Incarnation,  conceiving  of  the  union  as  at  first  compara- 
tively outward  and  dissoluble,  gradually  becoming  more 
intimate  as  the  human  development  of  Jesus  progressed, 
till  at  length,  after  the  resurrection,  the  Logos  and  the 
man  became  absolutely  one, 2 — a  view  in  some  respects 
having  close  affinity  to  the  one  previously  described;  the 

>  So  Schneckenburger,  Vom  doppelten  Stande  Ckrisli,  p.  218:  Anstatt  jener 
Lutherischen  Spaltung  der  menschlichen  Natur  in  ihre  illokale  und  lokale  Sub- 
sistenz,  vielmehr  in  die  Lebensausserung  der  gottlichen  eine  Distinktion  fallt,  wo- 
nach  die  mens  duplex  sich  eigentlich  vertheilt  an  den  Logos,  sofern  er  Person  der 
Trinitat  ist,  und  den  conkreten  Gottmenschen,  sofern  sich  in  Jesus  jene  Person 
menschlich,  d.  h.  als  menschliches  Individuum  darstellt  und  entwickelt.  Der  Logos 
totus  extra  Jesum  ist  die  secunda  persona  trinitatis  als  solche,  mit  der  scientia 
personalis,  der  Logos  totus  in  Jesu  ist  dieselbe  alles  durchdringende  und  bele- 
bende  gottliche  Hypostase,  sofern  sie  Lebensprincip  dieses  Individuums  ist,  des 
Gottmenschen,  dessen  individuelles  Bewusstsein  nicht  schlechthin  Alles  umfasst. 
Lebensprincip  dieses  Individuum  ist  der  Logos,  weil  er  hominem  yesum  sustentat. 
sein  Dasein  und  Personsein  absolut  bedingt,  ihm  gratiose  inwohnt  durch  den  hei- 
ligen  Geist.  Schneckenburger  speaks  of  the  Reformed  theory,  so  stated,  as  satis- 
fying pretty  much  the  Dornerian  desiderata,  and  says  that  the  Reformed  thean- 
thropic  life-development  is  the  normal  human  development  of  Him  who,  on 
account  of  His  unique  intimate  relation  to  the  Logos  (who  is  the  ground  of  all 
rational  being),  is  the  God-man. 

2  So  Dorner,  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  p.  250,  where 
he  states  his  own  view  in  opposition  to  the  kenotic  theory:  "On  the  only  other 
possible  view  (other  than  the  kenotic),  we  can  merely  speak  of  a  limitation  of  the 
self-communication  of  the  Logos  to  humanity,  not  of  a  lessening  or  reduction  of 
the  Logos  Himself.  The  being  and  actuality  of  the  Logos  remained  unchanged; 
but  Jesus  possessed  the  being  and  actuality  of  the  Logos  in  virtue  of  the  unio, 
■nerely  so  far  as  was  compatible  with  the  truth  of  the  human  growth.  For  this 
.eason  the  eternal  personality  of  the  Logos  did  not  immediately,  and  ere  there 
was  a  human  consciousness,  become  divine-/;«/«a«."  "On  this  view  the  object 
of  the  volition  of  the  Logos  is,  in  the  first  instance,  solely  the  production  of  a 
divine-human  nature,  not  a  divine-human  person."  The  union  is  "not  completely 
accomplished  until  the  personality  of  the  Logos  also  became  divine-human,  through 
the  coming  into  existence  of  a  human  consciousness  able  to  be  appropriated  and 
able  also  itself  to  appropriate."  Further  on,  Dorner  refers  to  Origen's  doctrine 
of  an  eternal  generation  of  the  Son,  as  analogous  to  this  doctrine  of  a  gradual 
Incarnation,  one  "constantly  growing  and  reproducing  itself  on  the  basis  of  the 
being."  He  then  adds,  by  way  of  explaining  this  idea:  "At  the  centre  of  His 
being,  it  is  true,  this  man  is  from  the  beginning  divine-human  essence:  but  many 
things  are  yet  lacking  to  this  person;  other  things  in  it  are  still  dissolubly  united 
— for  example,  the  body  is  still  mortal;  other  things  are  still  mutable,  without 
detriment  to  its  identity.  The  divine-human  articulation,  the  bodily  and  the  spir- 
itual organism  of  the  divine-human  person,  needs  first  to  be  developed  "  (p.  258). 
The  idea  is,  that  the  physical  unto  is  a  momentary  act,  but  its  effects,  physical 
and  moral,  are  only  gradually  worked  out. 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  171 

main  difference  being,  that  in  the  Reformed  theory  the 
Logos  consciousness  never  becomes  absolutely  coincident 
with  the  human  consciousness  of  Christ,  the  distinction 
between  the  Logos  totus  extra  Jesum  and  the  Logos  totus 
in  Jesn  being  eternally  valid,  while  in  the  other  theory 
the  ultimatum  or  goal  is  an  absolute  identity,  in  the  old 
Lutheran  sense,  between  the  divine  and  the  human — the 
divine  become  wholly  human,  and  the  human  wholly  divine; 
and  the  Lutheran  axiom,  Logos  non  extra  carnem,  being 
realized  in  the  eternal,  as  it  could  not  be  in  the  earthly 
state.  The  advocates  of  kenosis,  in  the  sense  of  depoten- 
tiation,  total  or  partial,  are  not  satisfied  with  either  of  those 
schemes,  and  therefore  they  bring  forward  their  own.  And 
they  are  quite  entitled  to  do  so,  and  it  is  our  duty  to  listen 
to  them,  not  refusing  to  hear  on  the  ground  that  the  spec- 
ulation is  idle,  that  there  is  no  problem  to  solve,  no  need 
for  any  new  attempt  to  answer  the  question,  How  can 
Christ  be  God  without  at  the  same  time  ceasing  to  be  man  ? 
We  may  indeed  enter  on  the  study  of  this  new  theory  with 
a  suspicion  that  it  will  turn  out  a  failure,  yea,  with  a  rooted 
conviction  that  all  theories  whatsoever  will  break  down; 
only  believing  firmly  that  Christ  is  both  God  and  man,  and 
determined  that  no  theory,  orthodox  or  heterodox,  old  or 
new,  shall  rob  us  of  our  faith  in  either  of  the  factors  which 
constitute  our  Lord's  mysterious  person,  and  using  our 
critical  faculties  mainly  to  protect  ourselves  against  such  a 
result.  In  that  case,  we  shall  come  to  the  task  of  examin- 
ing the  latest  Christological  speculation  in  the  orthodox 
interest,  with  very  moderate  expectation  of  new  light. 
But  our  examination  need  not  on  this  account  be  careless, 
prejudiced,  or  contemptuous,  as  if  the  interests  of  science, 
as  distinct  from  those  of  faith,  had  already  been  fully  sat- 
isfied, and  all  further  theorizing,  or  theological  inquiry  on 
the  matter,  were  a  simple  impertinence. 

3.  One  other  general  observation  remains  to  be  made 
with  reference  to  the  kenotic  theory,  viz.,  that  it  does  not 
seem  advisable  to  dispose  of  it  in  a  summary  manner,  by 
a  priori  reasoning  from  the  divine  inchangeableness.  This 
attribute,  doubtless,  offers  a  very  tempting  short  road  to 
the  refutation  of  a  theory  which  we  have  previously  made 


172  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

up  our  minds  not  to  believe.  It  is  very  easy  for  one,  taking 
his  stand  at  that  point,  to  ask  imposing  and  formidable 
questions.  Is  this  so-called  kenosis  metaphysically  pos- 
sible? can  the  almighty  God  depotentiate  Himself?  can 
the  infinite  One  limit  Himself?  can  the  omniscient  One 
reduce  Himself  to  the  state  of  a  mere  human  germ,  without 
knowledge,  or  even  so  much  as  self-consciousness  ?  For 
my  part,  I  do  not  care  to  ask  such  questions;  I  am  not  in- 
clined to  dogmatize  on  what  is  possible  or  impossible  for 
God:  I  think  it  best  to  keep  the  mind  clear  of  too  decided 
prepossessions  on  such  matters.  It  appears  to  me  not  very 
safe  to  indulge  in  a  priori  reasonings  from  divine  attributes, 
and  especially  from  divine  unchangeableness.  It  is  wiser 
in  those  who  believe  in  revelation  to  be  ready  to  believe 
that  God  can  do  anything  that  is  not  incompatible  with 
His  moral  nature,  to  refuse  to  allow  metaphysical  difficulties 
to  stand  as  insuperable  obstacles  in  the  way  of  His  gracious 
purposes,  and  so  far  to  agree  with  the  advocates  of  the 
kenosis  as  to  hold  that  He  can  descend  and  empty  Him- 
self to  the  extent  love  requires.  For  a  priori  reasoning 
from  divine  attributes,  besides  being  liable  to  a  charge  of 
presumption,  is  apt  to  be  dangerous.  We  may  put  weapons 
into  the  hands  of  foes  to  be  wielded  with  fatal  effect  against 
doctrines  dear  to  our  hearts.  What  if  the  attribute  of 
unchangeableness  should  be  brought  to  bear  against  the 
Incarnation  itself  !  What  if  men  should  begin  to  ask  such 
questions  as  these:  "  If  God  be  unchangeable,  how  can  He 
become  flesh  ?  If  God  be  essentially  unlimited,  how  can 
He  so  subject  Himself  to  the  limitations  of  the  humanity 
of  Christ,  as  in  Him  to  be  really  with  us?"1  How  is 
Strauss  to  be  answered  when  he  argues:  "A  God  who 
performs  single  acts  is  certainly  a  person,  but  not  the  Ab- 
solute. Turning  Himself  from  one  act  to  another,  or  now 
exercising  a  certain  kind  of  activity — the  extraordinary — 
anon  allowing  it  to  rest,  He  does  and  is  in  one  moment, 
what  He  neither  does  nor  is  in  another,  and  so  falls  alto- 
gether under  the  category  of  the  changeable,  the  temporal, 
the  finite  "  ?     Here  are   creation,   providence,   incarnation, 

1  Dorner,  Doctrine  of  the  Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  i.  p.  65,  with  referenca 
to  the  views  taught  by  Cyril  concerning  the  divine  immutability. 


Modern   Kenotic    Theories.  173 

miracles,  demolished  by  a  single  stroke  of  resistless  a  priori 
logic,  reasoning  with  unhesitating  assurance  from  the  at- 
tribute of  immutability.  They  that  take  the  sword  shall 
perish  with  the  sword;  therefore  let  believers  in  these  and 
kindred  revealed  truths  put  up  again  the  two-edged  sword 
of  a  priori  reasoning  into  his  place,  and  be  content  to  try 
current  theories  by  humbler  and  more  patient  methods, 
mindful  what  obstacles  every  Christian  truth  has  encoun- 
tered in  its  way  to  a  place  in  the  established  creed  of 
the  Church,  arising  out  of  speculative  presuppositions  and 
prepossessions. 

In  this  spirit,  then,  I  proceed  now  to  make  some  critical 
observations  upon  the  theory  in  question,  some  of  these 
being  but  repetitions  or  expansions  of  objections  stated  by 
German  theologians,  who  have  not  seen  their  way  to  give 
the  kenotic  hypothesis  their  unqualified  approval. 

1.  First  of  all,  there  is  a  great  initial  difficulty  to  be  got 
over.  According  to  the  Thomasian  theory  the  Incarnation 
involves  at  once  an  act  of  assumption  and  an  act  of  self- 
limitation;  the  two  acts,  distinct  in  thought,  being  coin- 
cident in  time,  and  simply  different  aspects  of  one  and  the 
same  act.  Now  the  difficulty  is,  that  these  two  phases 
show  the  same  act  in  what  seem  contradictory  lights,  at 
once  as  an  assertion  and  a  deposition  of  divine  power.  The 
Incarnation,  as  assumption  of  human  nature  on  the  part  of 
the  Logos,  is  an  exercise  of  omnipotence;  as  self-limitation, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  is  the  loss  of  omnipotence.  One  act 
of  will  has  contrary  effects;  one  effect  being  the  creation 
of  the  human  nature;  the  other,  the  entire  waste  or  dissi- 
pation of  force  in  the  act  of  creation.  Are  such  contrary 
effects  of  one  act  of  will  compatible  ? '  And  why  should 
this  particular  act  of  creation  be  followed  with  the  extinc- 
tion or  absorption  of  creative  force,  any  more  than  that  by 
which  the  Logos  brought  into  being  the  world  at  large,  or 
the  first  man  ?     Is  the  difference  due  to  the  fact  that  the 

1  Schneckenburger,  Vom  doppelten  Stande  Christi,  p.  214:  Eine  und  dieselbe 
Willensthat,  deren  Effekt  eine  gftttliche  iibernatlirliche  Machtausserung,  assumptio, 
and  zugleich  eine  iibernaturliche  Machtentleerung  ware,  ist  der  vollendete  Wider- 
spruch,  der  sich  nur  halten  kann,  wenn  die  Entleerung  zu  einer  quasi- ex inanitit 
gemacht  wird. 


1 74  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

product  in  this  case  is  personally  united  to  the  producer  ? 
Then  we  are  landed  in  a  heathenish  view  of  the  Incarna- 
tion, according  to  which  matter  is  accredited  with  power  to 
reduce  even  Deity  united  to  it  to  a  state  of  impotence; 
and  the  kenosis  ceases  to  be  a  voluntary  act  of  self- 
depotentiation,  except  in  the  sense  that  the  Logos  freely 
resolves  to  bring  Himself  into  contact  with  a  creature 
which,  He  knows  beforehand,  will  of  necessity  absorb  all 
His  divine  energy.1  It  might,  indeed,  seem  a  very  easy  way 
out  of  these  difficulties  to  make  the  kenosis  and  the  assump- 
tion twe  really  and  temporally  separate  acts,  either  of 
the  same  actor  or  of  different  actors.  The  Incarnation 
might  be  conceived  of  in  one  or  other  of  two  ways.  Either 
thus:  the  Logos  fully  depotentiated  Himself;  then  the  Holy 
Spirit  did  what  the  depotentiated  Logos  was  no  longer 
able  to  do — created  a  human  nature,  consisting  of  a  body 
and  a  soul,  and  united  this  creation  to  the  depotentiated 
Logos.  On  this  hypothesis  there  is  no  assumption,  but 
only  a  union  between  the  Logos  become  incapable  of  such 
an  act,  and  a  human  nature,  effected  by  the  Holy  Ghost; 
and  the  thing  united  to  the  Logos  is  not  merely  a  human 
nature,  but  a  complete  human  being.2  Or  thus:  the  Logos 
first  partially  depotentiated  Himself,  leaving  Himself  enough 
power  to  create  and  assume  human  nature,  and  then  the 
process  of  depotentiation  was  consummated  when  the  union 
had  been  effected.3  On  this  hypothesis,  however,  there 
arises,  for  a  moment  at  least,  that  very  dualism  which  the 
kenotic  theory  is  intended  to  get  rid  of — a  self-conscious 

1  Schneckenburger,  /.  c,  adduces  against  the  ascription  of  the  absorbtive  power 
to  the  nature  of  the  svcj/xevov  (the  human  nature),  the  fact  that,  in  the  union 
with  the  assumed  nature,  the  Logos  ultimately  becomes  active  and  potent  again, 
when  the  kenosis  is  at  an  end.  He  compares  the  depotentiation  of  the  Logos, 
which,  according  to  Thomasius,  takes  place  in  connection  with  the  Incarnation, 
to  the  loss  of  consciousness  sustained  by  God,  according  to  Lenau's  expression, 
"  in  the  rush  of  creation."  Etwa  so  wie,  nach  Lenau's  Ausdruck,  Gott  im  Schop- 
fungsrausch  das  Bewusstsein  verloren  haben  soil,  wUrde  des  Logos  in  Assumti- 
onsakt  seine  Gottheit  bis  zum  Minimum,  jedenfalls  bis  zur  Bewusstlosigkeit 
jrschopft  und  eingebusst  haben. 

2  Schneckenburger,  Vom  doppelten  Stande,  pp.  212,  213.  Of  this  hypothesis 
Schneckenburger  remarks:  "und  so  haben  wir  einerseits  die  reformirte  Lehre, 
andrerseits  noch  ein  Ilaretisches  zu  der  reformirten  Lehre  hinzu,  namlich  das  in 
8vo  q>v6£aov,  die  assumptio  hominis,  nicht  naturae  kumanae." 

3  Ibid.  p.  212. 


Modern  Ke?iotic    Theories.  175 

and  potent,  if  not  omnipotent,  Logos  united  to  a  human 
foetus,  and  freely  resolving  to  depotentiate  Himself  still 
further,  even  completely,  in  order  that  His  state  may  be 
perfectly  congruous  to  that  of  the  nature  He  has  assumed. 
2.  Assuming  the  initial  difficulty  to  have  been  surmounted, 
other  difficulties  confront  us  in  connection  with  the  in- 
carnate state.  One  is,  that  the  kenosis  reduces  the  Logos 
to  a  state  of  helpless  passivity  or  impotence.  Thomasius, 
indeed,  endeavours  to  meet  this  objection  by  the  remark 
that  "  Potenz "  does  not  signify  something  impotent  or 
empty,  but  fulness  concentrated  in  itself,  withdrawn  from 
the  circumference  of  manifestation  indeed,  yet  present  in 
the  centre,  and  having  power  over  itself.1  But  the  question 
is:  has  this  "  Potenz  "  power  at  will  to  radiate  forth  to  the 
circumference  of  manifestation  in  action,  or  is  it  under  a 
necessity  of  remaining  at  the  centre  confined  to  a  mere 
mathematical  point  ?  If  the  former  alternative  be  adopted, 
as  it  is  by  Ebrard,2  then  there  is  really  no  depotentiation, 
as  Ebrard  consistently  holds,  but  only  a  change  in  the  mode 
of  manifesting  and  exercising  power.  If  the  latter  alterna- 
tive be  adopted,  as  it  is  in  the  frankest  manner  by  Gess,3  then 
"  Potenz,"  in  spite  of  the  protest  of  Thomasius,  is  practically 
equivalent  to  impotence.  And  Thomasius  virtually  admits 
this,  by  representing  the  development  of  Christ  as  taking 
place  under  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  He  quotes 
with  approval  an  observation  of  Kahnis,  that  the  miracles 
of  Christ  proved,  not  His  divine  nature,  but  His  divine 
mission;  and  while  not  denying  them  to  be  expressions  of 
an  indwelling  power,  yet  he  speaks  of  them  as  wrought  at 
the  bidding  and  with  the  assistance  of  the  Father,  and 
through  the  medium  of  the  Holy  Ghost.4  In  like  manner 
does  he  account  for  Christ's  knowledge  of  the  divine.  That 
knowledge,  we  are  told,  Christ  got  in  no  human  school;  in 
virtue  of  His  union  with  the  Father,  He  saw  His  eternal 
thoughts,  not  as  one  who  received  them  by  revelation,  but 
through  His  own  immediate  intuition.  But  at  the  same 
time  it  is  admitted  that  these  divine  thoughts  came 
gradually  to  Christ's  consciousness  through  the  mediation 

1  See  p.  143.  2  See  p.  152.  3  See  p.  146. 

4  Christi  Person  mid  Werh,  ii.  p.  250. 


176  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

of  the  Holy  Spirit;  though  an  effort  is  made  tc  lessen  the 
importance  of  the  admission  by  the  further  statement,  that 
this  growth  in  knowledge,  under  the  education  of  the  Spirit, 
was  but  the  development  of  what  lay  hid  in  the  depths  of 
His  own  being.1  Now  what  is  the  consequence  of  this 
passivity  of  the  Logos,  reluctantly  admitted  by  Thomasius, 
more  frankly  conceded  by  Gess  ?  It  is  this,  that  in  the 
Thomasian  theory  the  depotentiated  Logos  associated  with 
a  human  soul  seems  superfluous;  it  would  make  little 
difference  though  He  were  not  there;2  and  that  in  the 
Gessian  theory,  the  Logos,  become  a  human  soul,  is 
allowed  no  benefit  from  His  antecedents,  the  divine  ele- 
ments fall  into  abeyance  so  completely,  that  His  sinless- 
ness  and  His  consciousness  of  personal  identity  are  rendered 
all  but  unaccountable;  insomuch  that  if  Jesus  had  happened 
to  be  a  Greek  instead  of  a  Jew,  without  the  benefit  of  the 
Hebrew  Scriptures,  He  could  not  have  known  who  He  was 
by  the  way  of  a  truly  human  development — in  other  words, 
without  a  miraculous  revelation. 

3.  But  this  passivity  of  the  depotentiated  Logos  involves 
another  consequence,  which  constitutes  a  third  difficulty  in 
the  way  of  accepting  the  kenotic  theory,  at  least  in  its 
Thomasian  and  Gessian  forms.  By  one  act  of  self-depoten- 
tiation,  the  Logos  is  reduced  to  such  a  state  of  impotence, 
that  His  kenosis  becomes  a  matter  of  physical  necessity, 
not  of  loving  free-will.  The  love  which  moved  the  Son  of 
God  to  become  man  consumed  itself  at  one  stroke.  There 
is  a  breach  of  continuity  in  the  mind  which  gave  rise  to  the 
Incarnation.  A  mighty  impulse  of  free  self-conscious  love 
constrained  the  eternal  Son  to  descend  into  humanity,  and 
in  the  descent  that  love  lost  itself  for  years;  till  at  length 
the  man  Jesus  found  out  the  secret  of  His  birth,  and  the 
sublime  spirit  of  self-sacrifice  to  which  it  owed  its  origin, 

1  Christi  Person  und  IVerk,  ii.  p.  237. 

2  See  Dorner,  div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  p.  254:  "  Nay  more,  on  such  a  supposition  the 
Incarnation  of  the  Logos  is  of  no  advantage  whatever  to  the  humanity.  It  does 
not  allow  the  Logos  to  communicate  Himself  in  ever-increasing  measure,  and  so 
as  to  direct  the  development  of  the  man  assumed.  .  .  .  Consequently,  the  hypoth- 
esis of  a  self-depotentiation  of  the  Logos  .  .  .  renders  it  necessary  to  look  out  for 
another  principle  than  the  Logos,  to  wit,  the  Holy  Ghost,  to  conduct  the  growth 
of  the  God-man"  (so,  for  example,  with  Thomasius  and  Hofmann). 


Modem  Kenotic   Theories.  177 

and  made  that  spirit  His  own,  said  Amen  to  the  mind  which 
took  shape  in  the  kenosis,1  and  resolved  thenceforth  to  act 
on  it,  and  so  reunited  the  broken  thread  of  personal  identity. 
On  this  view,  the  Logos  had  no  acquaintance  with  some  of 
the  most  interesting  stages  in  the  experience  of  Christ.  He 
knew  what  it  was  to  be  conceived  in  the  Virgin's  womb,  or 
rather  to  resolve  that  He  should  be;  for  by  the  time  the 
fact  was  accomplished,  He  was  no  longer  conscious;  and 
He  knew  what  it  was  to  be  tempted  in  the  wilderness,  and 
to  endure  the  contradiction  of  sinners  during  His  ministry, 
and  to  die;  for  by  the  time  these  experiences  came  to  Jesus, 
He  had  ascertained  who  He  was.  But  the  Logos  knew  not 
what  it  was  to  be  an  infant  in  the  cradle,  or  on  His  mother's 
breast;  what  it  was  to  be  a  boy  subject  to  His  parents;  what 
to  grow  in  wisdom  as  in  stature;  what  to  be  an  apprentice 
carpenter:  for  in  those  years  He  was  asleep — unconscious. 
Therefore  with  infants,  children,  and  youths  He  has  not 
learned  to  sympathize;  only  with  full-grown  tempted  men 
has  His  experience  fitted  Him  to  have  a  fellow-feeling.* 
On  this  account,  one  desiderates  a  way  of  making  the  Logos 
accommodate  Himself  to  the  human  development  other- 
wise than  by  depotentiation,  that  His  love  may  not  appear 
exhausted  by  a  single  act,  and  that  the  initial  act  of  sym- 
pathy may  not  disqualify  Him  for  entering  sympathetically 
into  all  the  experiences  of  human  life — those  of  the  first 
thirty,  not  less  than  those  of  the  last  three  years  of  Christ's 

1  Schneckenburger,  Vom  doppelten  Stande,  p.  204,  represents  Reinhard  as 
teaching  a  nachtragliche  Genehmigung  on  the  part  of  the  man  Jesus,  of  the 
exinanitio  to  which,  according  to  the  old  Lutheran  theory,  He  was  a  party  from 
the  moment  of  conception.  The  humanity  of  Christ  unconsciously  divested  itself 
of  divine  properties  at  the  conception,  and  consciously  consented  to  the  act  on 
reaching  maturity,  somewhat  as  a  Christian  homologates  the  vows  to  which  he 
was  unconsciously  a  party  at  his  baptism.  In  the  same  way  the  modern  kenosists 
are  shut  up  by  their  theory  to  an  ex  post  facto  homologation  by  the  man  Jesus 
of  the  original  act  of  kenosis  which  resulted  in  the  Incarnation. 

2  Dorner,  div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  p.  253:  "The  truth  of  the  kenosis  of  the  Logos  is  the 
love  which  stirred  in  Him  in  eternity,  in  virtue  of  which  He  condescends  to  the 
creatures  who  stand  in  need  and  are  susceptible  of  Him,  that  He  may  know  what 
is  theirs  and  communicate  what  is  His.  But  the  kenosis  of  self-depotentiation  fails 
to  perform  that  at  which  it  aims.  For  if  the  Logos  has  given  up  His  eternal  self- 
conscious  Being,  where  is  His  love  during  that  time  ?  Love  without  self-conscious- 
ness is  an  impossibility."  Dorner  further  questions  the  necessity  of  this  "  unethical 
sacrifice  of  Himself." 


i/S  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

earthly  history.  Is  this  impossible  ?  In  the  words  of 
Dorner,  "  Is  it  impossible  for  the  Logos  to  acquire  power 
over  the  central  susceptibility  of  humanity  which  He  finds 
in  Jesus,  and  to  belong  to  it  in  a  unique  manner,  save  by 
ceasing  to  stand  in  any  actual  relation  to  others  ?  or  save 
by  reducing  Himself  to  a  level  of  equality  with  this  man  ?  "  1 
4.  The  Thomasian  form  of  the  kenotic  theory  is  open  to 
objection  with  reference  to  the  personal  unity.  It  teaches 
the  presence  in  Christ  of  two  life  centres,  the  depotentiated 
Logos  and  the  human  soul.  Now  this  doctrine  is  in 
danger  of  being  impaled  on  one  or  other  of  the  horns  of 
the  following  dilemma.  Either  these  two  life  centres  are 
"  homogeneous  magnitudes"  or  they  are  not.  If  they  are 
not,  then  a  dualism  ensues  in  the  consciousness  of  the 
God-man,  and  the  depotentiation  of  the  Logos  has  taken 
place  in  vain;  for  the  very  object  of  that  depotentiation 
was  to  exclude  dualism.  Such  a  dualism  can  be  escaped 
only  by  a  perfect  equality  of  the  two  life  centres  in  spirit- 
ual endowment.  The  two  yoke-fellows  must  draw  equally 
and  keep  pace,  else  the  course  of  the  human  development 
will  be  other  than  smooth  and  harmonious.  If,  on  the 
other  hand,  the  two  life  centres  be  homogeneous,  then  the 
unity  of  self-consciousness  may  indeed  be  secured;  but 
only  with  the  effect  of  raising  the  question:  To  what  pur- 
pose this  duality  in  the  life  basis  ?  Why  two  human 
souls  to  do  the  work  of  one  ?  for,  ex  hypothesis  the  depo- 
tentiated Logos  is  to  all  intents  and  purposes  a  human 
soul.  Instead  of  this  roundabout  process,  according  to 
which  the  Logos  first  reduces  Himself  to  the  dimensions 
of  a  human  soul,  and  then  associates  with  Himself  another 
human  soul,  why  not  say  at  once  the  Logos  became  a 
human  soul  ?  On  the  Thomasian  theory,  the  depotentiated 
Logos,  or,  if  you  will,  the  human  soul  of  Christ,  is  degraded 
from  the  position  of  a  necessary  constituent  of  the  person- 
ality to  that  of  a  dispensable  ornament.  The  two  life 
centres,  the  self-reduced  Logos  and  the  human  soul,  are 
like  the  two  eyes  or  the  two  ears  of  a  man.  As  the 
sensations  of  both  organs  coalesce  in  one  mental  act  of 
perception,  the    duality   of  the  organs  does  not  produce 

1  Dorner,  div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  p.  254. 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  ijg 

any  duality  of  consciousness,  while  it  adds  to  the  symmetry 
and  grace  of  the  person;  but  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  the  act  of  perception,  one  eye  or  ear  being 
able  to  do  the  work  of  the  two.1 

This  being  the  state  of  the  case  as  regards  the  Thoma- 
sian  form  of  the  kenotic  hypothesis,  it  is  not  surprising  that 
the  preponderance  of  opinion,  among  theologians  of  the 
same  Christological  school,  should  be  decidedly  in  favour 
of  the  metamorphic  form  of  the  theory,  which  gets  rid  of 
the  duality  of  life  centres  by  representing  the  Logos  as 
undergoing  conversion  into,  or  as  taking  the  place  and 
performing  the  function  of,  a  human  soul.  This  form  of 
the  theory  now  invites  our  attention. 

5.  The  metamorphic  theory  of  Christ's  person,  as  ex- 
pounded by  Gess,  is  liable  to  two  grave  objections.  One 
of  these  has  reference  to  the  power  which  this  theory  gives 
to  the  flesh  of  the  incarnate  Logos  to  determine  His 
condition.  The  text,  "  the  Word  became  flesh,"  means, 
that  the  flesh  and  blood  which  he  assumed  became  in  this 
union  a  determining  power  for  the  Logos.  The  Incar- 
nation signifies  the  subjection  of  Deity  to  the  dominion  of 
matter.  Contact  with  flesh  is  fatal  to  the  free,  conscious 
life  of  God;  it  is  a  plunge  into  a  Lethe  stream,  which 
involves  loss  of  self-consciousness,  and  therewith  of  the 
divine  attributes  of  omniscience,  omnipotence,  omnipres- 
ence, and  even  of  eternal  holiness.  It  is  true  these 
attributes  are  in  the  metamorphosed  Logos  in  a  state  of 
rest;  but  it  is  a  rest  out  of  which  they  cannot  return  until 
the  Logos  wakens  up  to  self-consciousness,  and  that  waken- 
ing does  not  take  place  fully  till  death  has  delivered  the 
imprisoned  Deity  from  the  bondage  of  His  mortal  corrupti- 
ble body.  "  Not  in  entire  forgetfulness,"  indeed,  did  the 
Son  of  God  pass  His  life  on  earth  previous  to  His  passion. 

1  On  this  objection  to  the  Thomasian  theory,  see  Dorner,  div.  ii.  vol.  iii.  pp. 
255,  256.  Dorner  says:  "  It  does  not  even  help  the  question  of  the  unity  of  the 
divine  and  human,  unless  we  should  say  that  the  depotentiation  was  in  itself  Incar- 
nation, that  is,  conversion  into  a  human  existence.  ...  If,  however,  no  conver- 
sion be  supposed  to  have  taken  place,  and  yet  the  kenosis  be  assumed  for  the  pur- 
pose of  the  unio  ...  we  should  have  nothing  but  two  homogeneous  magnitudes 
in  or  alongside  of  each  other,  .  .  .  and  the  result  arrived  at  resembles  a  duplica- 
tion of  one  and  the  same,  through  which  the  one  or  the  c  ther  s  rendered  useless." 


i8o  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

By  instinct,  by  perusal  of  the  Scriptures,  by  close  commun- 
ion with  His  Father,  Jesus  had  found  out  who  He  was  by 
the  time  He  began  His  public  ministry;  and  the  conclusion 
at  which  He  had  arrived  by  these  means  was,  or  at  least 
may  possibly  have  been,  confirmed  by  flashes  of  recollec- 
tion lighting  up  the  darkness  of  the  incarnate  state,  and 
for  a  moment  revealing  the  heavens  whence  He  had  come 
But  not  till  He  tasted  death  did  He  perfectly  recover  pos- 
session of  Himself.  Then  the  bound  powers  of  Godhead 
were  immediately,  and  we  may  say  ipso  facto,  released  from 
the  enslavement  of  matter.  For  though  our  author  speaks 
of  Jesus  after  His  death  as  made  alive  in  the  spirit  by  the 
Father,1  this  is  only  a  convenient  use  of  Scripture  language 
to  express  the  idea  that  death  itself  gave  Him  back  His 
life  in  all  its  native  energy.  Death,  so  to  speak,  disen- 
gaged the  divine  power  of  the  Logos,  which  had  been 
reduced  to  a  latent  state  by  entrance  into  connection  with 
matter,  somewhat  as  heat  applied  to  water  disengages  the 
latent  force  of  steam.  Depotentiated  at  His  conception  in 
the  Virgin's  womb,  the  incarnate  Logos  became  repotenti- 
ated  at  His  death,  so  that  He  was  able  to  raise  His  own 
body  from  the  grave,  and  transform  it  into  a  fit  organ  for 
the  manifestation  of  His  recovered  life  in  all  its  fulness — 
transform  it  at  once,  per  sattum,  not  gradually;  for  a 
body  retaining  any  particle  of  gross  materiality  could  not 
be  a  fit  companion  for  the  Logos  returned  to  Himself,  but 
would  only  bring  Him  again,  partially  at  least,  into  a  state 
of  most  unseasonable  bondage.1 

The  other  grave  difficulty  besetting  the  Gessian  theory 
is,  that  it  ensures  the  reality  of  Christ's  human  experience 

•  Die  Lehre  von  der  Person  Christi,  p.  379:  Nach  der  Todtung  am  Fleisch 
ward  jesus  von  dem  Vater  lebendig  gemacht  am  Geist,  und  nachdem  er  im  Geiste 
den  Geistern  im  Gefangniss  geprediget  hatte,  ward  sein  im  Grabe  liegender  Leib 
von  ihm  selbst  wieder  aufgerichtet,  sein  im  Tode  hingegebenes  Leben  von  ihm 
selbst  wieder  hingenommen. 

s  Die  Lehre  von  der  Person  Christi,  p.  379.  In  the  above  remarks  I  have 
given  not  Gess'  own  words,  but  what  I  regard  as  the  legitimate  outcome  of  his 
theory.  He  teaches  an  immediate  transformation  of  the  risen  body,  and  I  suggest 
a  reason  naturally  arising  out  of  his  theory  for  holding  that  doctrine.  With  regard 
to  the  Ascension,  Gess  remarks:  Die  Himmelfahrt  ist  fur  die  Leiblichkeit  Jesu 
nicht  der  Eintritt  einer  neuen  Epoche,  sie  ist  nur  das  letzte  um  der  Jtlnger  willen 
in  feierlicher  Auffahrt  geschehende  Scheiden  des  Auferstandenen.     P.  380. 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  181 

in  a  way  which  imperils  the  end  of  the  Incarnation,  viz., 
the  redemption  of  sinners,  for  which  it  is  indispensable 
that  the  Redeemer  Himself  should  be  free  from  sin.  This 
theory  is  so  thoroughly  in  earnest  with  the  conversion  of 
the  Logos  into  a  human  soul,  that  it  quite  consistently 
treats  sin  as  a  real  possibility  for  Jesus.  And  while,  of 
course,  all  who  advocate  this  theory  agree  in  believing  that, 
as  a  matter  of  fact,  the  possibility  did  not  become  actual,  I 
do  not  think  they  succeed  in  giving  any  good  reason  for 
the  fact.  The  risk  of  moral  evil  appearing  in  the  life  of 
Jesus  is  not  duly  provided  against.  All  that  Gess  has  to 
say  is,  that  God  foreknew  that  the  man  Jesus  would  not  fall 
into  sin,  and  therefore  was  willing  that  the  risk  should  be 
run.1  That  is,  the  chances  might  be  ten,  a  hundred,  a 
million  to  one,  against  the  preservation  of  sinlessness,  but 
God  foresaw  that  the  barely  possible  would  happen,  there- 
fore He  decreed  that  the  Incarnation  should  take  place. 
This  is  simply  giving  up  the  problem  as  insoluble;  a  remark 
applicable  also  to  the  Schleiermacherian  method  of  securing 
the  sinlessness  of  Christ,  viz.,  by  a  determinism  which  ex- 
cludes real  moral  freedom,  i.e.  by  physical  force.  Other 
supporters  of  the  kenotic  theory,  seeing  the  unsatisfactori- 
ness  of  leaving  the  vital  matter  of  the  Saviour's  moral 
perfection  to  the  chapter  of  accidents,  or,  what  comes  to 
the  same  thing,  to  the  power  of  an  unethical  necessity, 
have  sought  a  solution  of  the  problem  in  the  remanent 
divinity  of  the  Logos  incarnate.  Liebner,  for  example, 
while  apparently  agreeing  with  Gess  in  making  the  Son 
of  God,  entered  into  "  Werden,"  take  the  place  of  a 
human  soul,  insists  on  ascribing  to  the  incarnate  Son 
a  large  superhuman,  superadamitic  element.2  He  will 
not  have  Christ  be  regarded  as  a  human  being  put, 
by  His  immaculate  conception,  in  the  same  position 
as  Adam  before  the  fall,  capable  of  being  either  good 
or  evil,  and  having  used  His  freedom  well,  exhibiting 
in  His  person  as  an  individual  saint  the  character  of  a 
normally  developed  Adam.3     He  will  have  us  understand 

1  See  p.  149.  2  See  Appendix,  Note  B. 

3  Christologie,  p.  318:  Es  giebt  einen  gewissen  hoheren   Ebionismus,  dem  ej 
aur  auf  einen  einzelnen  Heiligen  ankommt,  und  dem  daher  Chnstus  nur  wiedei 


1 82  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

that,  being  the  Logos  incarnate,  Christ  could  not  but  live 
a  holy  life;  for  this  among  other  reasons,  because  His  exist- 
ence in  this  world  was  preceded  by  an  ethical  being  in 
the  eternal  world,  of  which  He  had  the  benefit  in  His 
earthly  career.  Now  this  may  be  true  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
but  in  proportion  as  it  is  true,  is,  if  not  the  reality  of 
Christ's  moral  experience  as  a  man,  at  least  its  similarity 
to  that  of  other  men,  compromised.  And  in  general  it  may 
be  remarked  in  reference  to  kenotic  theories  of  the  Gessian 
type,  that  they  seemed  doomed  to  oscillate  between  Apol- 
linarism  and  Ebionitism.  Either  they  make  the  Logos,  qua 
human  soul,  not  human  enough  or  too  human.  Either 
they  retain  for  the  Logos  a  little  of  His  divinity  to  carry 
Him  safely  through  His  curriculum  of  temptation,  or,  com- 
pelling Him  to  part  with  all  but  His  metaphysical  essence, 
they  reduce  Him  strictly  to  Adam's  level,  and  expose  Him 
to  Adam's  risks.1 

6.  In  the  form  given  to  it  by  Ebrard,  the  kenotic  theory 
certainly  does  not  err  by  making  Christ  too  much  of  a  man. 
The  Christ  presented  to  us  under  this  type,  as  has  been  re- 
marked by  a  recent  German  writer,  wears  the  aspect  of  a 
middle  Being2 — neither  God  nor  man,  but  more  the  former 
than  the  latter.  He  retains  all  His  divine  attributes,  only 
not  in  the  absolute  form  suited  to  the  eternal  mode  of  ex- 
istence, but  in  the  applied  form  suited  to  existence  in  time; 
and,  retaining  these  attributes  in  applied  form,  He  assumes 
flesh,  and  is  found  in  fashion  as  a  man.  One's  first  thought 
is  that  such  a    Being  is  a   man  only  in    appearance;   but 

der  normal  entwickelte  Adam  ist.  Aber  Christus  muss  sowohl  auf  der  person- 
lichen,  als  auf  der  Naturseile  zugleich  von  Adam  unterschieden  werden.  Es  bedarf 
mehr  als  nur  des  normal  entwickelten  Adam,  es  bedarf  eines  Allbefreiers,  eines 
universalen  und  centralen  Hauptes. 

1  Hodge.  Systematic  Tkeohgy,  vol.  ii.  p.  431,  while  disapproving  of  the  kenotic 
theory,  indicates  a  certain  favour  for  Gess.  Referring  to  Gess'  claim  to  have  ar- 
rived  at  his  conclusion  by  the  study  of  the  Scriptures,  he  remarks:  "There  is 
ground  for  this  self-congratulation  of  the  author,  for  his  book  is  far  more  scriptural 
in  its  treatment  of  the  subject  than  any  other  book  of  the  same  class  with  which 
we  are  acquainted.  It  calls  for  a  thorough  review  and  candid  criticism."  Hodge's 
acquaintance  with  the  kenotic  literature  seems  to  have  been  superficial  and  frag 
mentary. 

'-'  NOsgen,  Christus  der  Menschen-  und  Gottessohn,  Gotha,  1869,  p.  235:  "  fcib 
rard's  Auifassung  macht  Christum  zu  einem  menschlich-gOttlichen  Mittelwesen." 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  183 

Ebrard  stoutly  denies  that  his  theory  lays  him  open  to  a 
charge    of  doketism.      The    Logos,   retaining    His    divine 
properties  in  their  altered  form,  does  not  exceed  the  di- 
mensions of  humanity.     His  endowments,  indeed,  far  ex- 
ceed those  of  man  in  his  present  degenerate  state,  but  they 
are  nothing  more  than  the  realization  of  the  ideal  of  hu- 
manity.    Christ  is  simply  the  sinless,  pleromatic,  wonder- 
working man,  exercising  dominion  over  the  laws  of  nature 
as  depraved  by  sin.     Through  the  Incarnation  of  the  Son 
of  God  was  given  a  man  who,  as  to  His  will,  was  in  the 
state  of  integrity,  like  Adam  before  the  fall;  who,  as  to  His 
natural  gifts,  bore  within  Him  all  the  powers  of  humanity, 
which  lay  as  undeveloped  germs  in  the  first  federal  head  of 
the  race,  like  a  sun  gathering  these  up  into  Himself  as  con- 
centrated radii  of  a  complete  all-sided  development;  and 
who,  as  to  His  power,  stood  exalted  as  Lord  over  the  laws. 
of  the  depraved  order  of  nature.1     This   man  was   neither 
more  nor  less  than  the  ideal  man,  the  head  of  the  human  racer. 
in  whom  the  organism  of  humanity  found  its  unity.     If  it  be 
objected   that,  according   to  this  doctrine,  man  and  God 
«ire  practically  one,  our  author  replies:  Even  so,  that  is  the 
eternal    truth   of  the  matter.     He  holds  that   it  was    the 
eternal  purpose  of  God,  altogether  irrespective  of  the  en- 
trance of  sin  into  the    world,  that  on    the  one  hand  God 
.should  enter  into   time   by  becoming   man,    and    that   on 
the  other  hand  man  should  rise  to  the  full  realization  of 
his  ideal  in  becoming  God,  and  attaining  to  dominion  over 
the  laws  of  nature,  over  the  objects  of  knowledge,  and  over 
space,  such  as  we  see  exemplified  in  the  applied   omnipo- 
tence, omniscience,  and  omnipresence  of  Christ.2     There- 
fore Christ,  even  in  His  miracles,  in  His  penetration  into 
the  secrets  of  the  future,  in  His  power  to  transport  Himself 

'  Dogmatik,  ii.  32:  Durch  die  Menschwerdung  des  Sohnes  Gottes  war  also 
gegeben  ein  Mensch  der  (a)  was  sein  Wollen  betraf,  im  stat.  integr.  stand,  d. 
h.  sich,  wie  Adam  vor  dem  Fall,  frei  entscheiden  konnte  fur  gut  oder  bos;  (b)  was 
sein  naturliche  Begabung  betraf,  alle  Krafte  der  Menschheit,  die  in  dem  ersten 
Stammvater  Adam,  unentwickelt,  keimartig,  lagen,  als  zusammengehende  Radien 
des  vollendeten,  allseitigen  Entwickelung  sonnenhaft  in  sich  trug;  (c)  was  sein 
Konnen  betraf,  schlechthin  erhaben  und  herrschend  iiber  den  Gesetzen  der  de- 
pravirten  Naturordnung  stand. 
2   Vid.  Appendix,  Note  D. 


184  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

at  will  from  one  place  to  another,  was  not  superhuman, 
but  only  ideally  human.     In  these  acts  of  applied  omnipo- 
tence, omniscience,  and  omnipresence,  He  was  at  once  God 
and  man;  combining  in  His  person  the  two  natures,  not 
indeed  as  separate  parts,  but  as  two  aspects  of  one  and  the 
same  being — even  the  Son  of  God  become  man,  man  sin- 
less, pleromatic,  wonder-working,  still  man — not  possess- 
ing the  eternal  world-governing  form  of  the  metaphysical 
attributes  of  God,  not  even  the  eternal  form  of  the  ethical 
attributes,  such  being  incompatible  with  the  idea  of  man.1 
On  the    ambitious  speculations  concerning  an  Incarna- 
tion independent  of  sin,  as  the  realization  of  the  great  end 
of  creation,  the  union  of  God,  the  Creator,  with  man,  the 
highest  of  His    creatures,    interwoven  by  Ebrard   into  his 
Christology,  I  offer  no  remark,  all  the  more  that  they  con- 
duct to  giddy  heights,  on  which  one  accustomed  to  hum- 
bler levels  of  thought  is  apt  to  experience  vertigo.     I  sim- 
ply observe,  that  the  Christological  theory  of  this  author 
seems  to  be  more  in  harmony  with  the  pretentious  phil- 
osophy with  which  it  is  associated,  than  with  the  facts  of 
gospel  history,  or  with  the  catholic  faith  concerning  our 
Lord's  person.     Ebrard,  indeed,  is  very  confident  that  his 
theory  is  at  once  scriptural  and  ecclesiastically  orthodox; 
but  this  circumstance  need  not  influence  us  much,  as  over- 
weening confidence  is  one  of  his  most  marked  intellectual 
characteristics.     As  to  Scripture,  it  may  be  admitted  that 
it  does  appear  as  if  Christ  possessed  the  inherent  power  to 
work  miracles  at  will,  His  virtue  in  the  temptation  and  at 
other  times  consisting  in  absolutely  abstaining  from  making 
any  use  of  His  power  for  His  own   personal  behoof.     But 
how  is   the  doctrine   that   Christ,  as   man,  possessed   ap- 
plied omniscience,  to  be  reconciled  with  His  profession  of 
ignorance  ?     That    profession  Ebrard    himself  regards    as 
.bond  fide,  and  he  looks  on  the  ignorance  sincerely  acknowl- 

1  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  35:  Die  gottliche  und  menschliche  Natur  sind  nicht  zwei 
'Stttcke,  oder  Theile,  aus  denen  die  Person  Christi  zusammengeleimt  ist,  sondern 
der  Sohn  Gottes  ward  Mensch,  so  dass  er  nun  eben  Mensch  war,  zwar,  silndloser, 
pleromatischer  wunderthatiger  Mensch,  aber  eben  Mensch,  nicht  besitzend  die 
mit  dem  Begriff  des  Menschen  streitende  evvige  weltregierende  Form  der  meta- 
physischen  Eigenschaften  Gottes,  selbst  nicht  die  ewige  Form  der  ethischen. 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  iS5 

edged,  as  an  evidence  that  Christ  did  not  possess  omni- 
science in  the  eternal  form.1  But  the  question  is,  did  He 
possess  applied  omniscience,  the  power  of  knowing  this  and 
that  secret  at  will;  and  if  He  did,  how  is  that  attribute  to 
be  reconciled  with  real  ignorance?  Is  it  not  an  abuse  of 
words  to  ascribe  applied  omniscience  to  one  of  whom  ig- 
norance can  be  predicated  ? 2  How,  again,  is  the  doctrine 
that  Christ  possessed  divine  attributes  in  an  applied  form, 
to  be  reconciled  with  the  state  of  childhood  ?  Did  Christ  as 
a  child  possess  omnipotence  and  omniscience  applicable  at 
will  ?  Ebrard  could  hardly  reply  in  the  affirmative,  for  he 
admits  that  Jesus  really  grew  in  wisdom  as  in  stature.4 
He  might  indeed  say  that  the  child  possessed  these  attri- 
butes unconsciously,  as  a  sleeping  man  possesses  knowl- 
edge: therefore  in  an  inapplicable  form.  But  this,  again,  is 
only  playing  with  words.  Unconscious,  unavailable  power 
is  a  euphemism  for  impotence;  and  unconscious,  unavail- 
able knowledge  a  euphemism  for  ignorance.  Once  more, 
where  in  Scripture  are  we  taught  that  man  is  destined  to 
attain  to  such  divine  powers  as  Ebrard  ascribes  to  Christ, 
even  to  unlimited  dominion  of  the  spirit  over  nature,  to 
unlimited  power  to  penetrate  all  objects  of  knowledge, 
and  to  unlimited  dominion  over  space  ?  And  if,  indeed, 
this  be  man's  ultimate  destiny,  to  be  attained  in  the  state 
of  glory,  in  what  sense  does  Christ  differ  from  all  in  whom 
this  ideal  of  humanity  is  realized  ?  Does  not  this  doctrine 
lead  to  as   many   Incarnations  as  there  shall  be  glorified 

1  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  21:  Was  die  Allwissenheit  betrifft,  so  weiss  er  nicht  die  Zeit 
des  Weltgerichts;  selbst  die  Art  seines  Leidens  sieht  er  mit  naherer  Bestimmtheit 
erst  gegen  Ende  seines  Lebens  voraus. 

2  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  20:  Von  dem  Augenblick  an,  wo  er  in  die  Existenzform  des 
menschlichen  Embryo  eingegangen  war,  entwickelte  er  sich  als  achtes  mensch- 
liches  Individuum,  ward  geboren,  lag  als  Kind  in  der  Krippe,  wuchs,  und  wuchs 
nicht  etwa  nur  lieblich,  so  dass  seine  geistige  Entwicklung  so  gleich  von  Anfang 
an  vollendet  und  fertig,  oder  er  gar  etwa,  wahrend  er  in  der  Wiege  lag,  allwissend 
gewesen  ware,  sondern  es  heisst  von  ihm,  Luk.  ii.  52,  er  nahm  zu  an  Alter  und 
Weisheit. 

3  See  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  145,  where,  with  reference  to  the  personal  identity  of  the 
Incarnate  with  the  pre-existent  Logos,  Ebrard  emphasizes  the  truth  that  unity  ot 
person  is  not  the  same  thing  as  unity  of  consciousness,  and  remarks  that  as-  every 
man  is  more  than  he  knows,  so  it  is  conceivable  that  the  incarnate  Logos  bore 
within  Him  the  fulness  of  His  eternal  essential  properties  without  being  conscious 
of  them. 


1 86  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

saints  ?  It  is  no  bar  to  this  conclusion  to  say  that  Christ 
possesses  absolutely,  what  we  shall  possess  relatively.1  If 
"  relatively "  mean  imperfectly,  then  after  all  it  is  not 
man's  destiny  to  possess  the  unlimited  power  promised  to 
him.  If,  on  the  other  hand,  "  relatively"  does  not  involve 
limitation,  then  how  does  it  differ  from  "  absolutely  "  ? 
The  question  of  our  author's  orthodoxy,  in  the  ecclesias- 
tical sense,  is  one  of  secondary  importance;  but  his  self- 
complacency  on  this  score  provokes  the  remark,  that  his 
attempt  to  bring  the  Patristic  and  the  Reformed  Chris- 
tologies  into  conformity  with  his  views  can  hardly  appear, 
to  a  dispassionate  reader,  in  any  other  light  than  as  a  char- 
acteristic display  of  perverse  ingenuity.  It  may  be  the  case 
that  the  two  natures  in  Christ  are  in  truth  only  two  aspects, 
two  abstract  properties  belonging  to  the  Son  of  God  entered 
into  the  form  of  humanity:  the  divine  nature  signifying  the 
properties  which  belong  to  Him  as  the  incarnate  Son  OF 
GOD  (uncreated,  eternally-begotten,  etc.);  the  human  na- 
ture signifying  those  which  belong  to  Him  as  the  Son  of 
God  INCARNATE  (conceived,  born,  dead,  possessing  a  ra- 
tional soul  and  a  human  body);  but  this  is  not  the  way  in 
which  the  early  fathers,  or  the  Reformed  theologians,  con- 
ceived of  the  matter.2  The  two  natures  were  not  in  their 
view  two  persons,  but  they  were  two  subsistences,  two 
things.  John  of  Damascus  may  be  taken  as  a  more  reliable 
expositor  of  the  Church  doctrine  than  the  erratic  modern 
divine.  Having  distinguished  three  senses  in  which  the 
word  nature  may  be  viewed,  according  as  it  is  considered 
either  sola  cogitatione,  or  in  specie,  or  in  individuo,  John 
applies  the  distinction  to  the  Incarnation  as  follows:  God 
the  Word,  assuming  flesh,  neither  took  a  nature,  which  is 
an  object  of  mere  mental  contemplation  (for  this  would  not 
have  been  an  Incarnation,  but  an  imposture),  nor  that  which 

1  Abendmahl,  ii.  791:  Der  aber  wer  ohne  Silnde  und  der  Eingeborene  vom 
Vater  war,  der  besass.absolut,  was  wir  dereinst  relativ  zu  besitzen  bestimmt  sind. 

2  Ebrard,  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  61,  gives  the  above  as  the  import  of  the  doctrine 
formulated  at  the  Council  of  Chalcedon:  Die  beiden  g>v6si?  sind  also  nach  chal- 
cedonischer  Lehre  weder  zwei  Personen  (der  Logos  und  ein  Mensch)  noch  auch  zwei 
Subsistenzen  in  dem  Einen  menschgewordenen  Logos  (Naturen  in  concretem  Sinn) 
sondern  zwei  abstracte,  nur  durch  Abstraction  denkbare  Propriet&ten,  die  dem  in 
die  Form  der  Menschheit  eingetretenen  Sohne  Gottes  zukommen,  etc. 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  187 

is  considered  in  specie,  but  that  only  which  is  in  individuo; 
not,  indeed,  as  having  subsisted  by  itself  as  an  independent 
individual  before  its  assumption,  but  as  having  its  subsist- 
ence in  the  person  of  the  Word.1  The  Reformed  theolo- 
gians concurred  in  this  view.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  In 
their  controversy  with  the  Lutherans  they  were  accustomed 
to  speak  of  the  two  natures  as  abstracta,  with  reference  to 
the  person,  it  being  the  habit  of  their  opponents  to  over- 
look the  distinction  between  person  and  nature,  and  ascribe 
to  the  human  nature  of  Christ,  per  se,  whatever  might  be 
ascribed  to  the  man  Christ.  But  this  is  a  very  different 
thing  from  regarding  the  human  nature  as  simply  an  aspect 
of  the  incarnate  Logos,  as  if,  for  example,  the  human  soul 
of  Christ  were  simply  the  Logos  under  the  time-form  of 
existence,  subject  to  the  law  of  succession  in  His  thought, 
and  applying  His  omnipotence  not  in  all  directions  simulta- 
neously, but  now  in  this  direction,  now  in  that.  In  the 
Reformed  Christology,  Christ's  soul  was  a  numerically  dis- 
tinct entity  from  the  Logos.  Hence  Ebrard  finds  it  rather 
difficult  to  make  citations  from  the  Reformed  writers,  which 
even  seem  to  support  his  views,  and  is  under  the  necessity 
of  correcting  their  inaccurate  (?)  expressions,  in  order  to 
bring  them  up  to  the  Ebrardian  standard  of  orthodoxy. 
Thus,  e.g.,  one  old  expounder  of  the  Reformed  Christology 
says:  "The  human  nature  of  Christ  is  a  creature,  visible, 
tangible,  finite  in  essence,  duration,  and  power,  composed 
of  body  and  soul;  His  divine  nature  is  God  invisible,  impal- 
pable, infinite  as  to  essence,  duration,  and  power,  void  of 
all  composition,  impassible,  immortal."  Our  modern  repre- 
sentative of  the  Reformed  school  of  theology  treats  his 
predecessor  as  a  blundering  schoolboy,  and  after  the  words, 
"  the  human  nature  of  Christ,"  writes  within  brackets 
("better,  Christ  in  His  human  nature").2 

1  De  Fide  Orthodoxa,  lib.  iii.  cap.  xi. 

s  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  114,  quoting  Wendeline:  Ita  humana  Christi  natura  est  [bes- 
ser,  Christus  humana  natura  est]  creatura,  visibilis,  palpabilis,  finita[us]  quoad 
essentiam,  durationem,  et  potentiam,  composita[us]  ex  corpore  et  anima;  divina 
natura  est  Deus,  invisibilis,  impalpabilis,  infinita[us]  quoad  essentiam  durationem, 
potentiam,  omnis  compositionis  expers,  impatibilis,  immortalis.  Ebrard  admits 
that  in  some  writings  of  the  Reformed  school  the  two  natures  are  spoken  of  as 
"two  parts."     On  the  other  hand,  he  claims  Zanchius  as  one  who  most  clearly 


1 88  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

7.  The  kenotic  theory,  in  the  form  given  to  it  by  Mar- 
tensen,  escapes  at  least  some  of  the  objections  to  which, 
under  the  forms  already  considered,  it  is  liable.  The  initial 
difficulty  pointed  out  in  connection  with  the  Thomasian 
scheme  does  not  meet  us  here,  where  the  kenosis  while  real 
is  only  relative;  inasmuch  as,  on  this  hypothesis,  the  In- 
carnation does  not  signify  the  assumption  of  human  nature 
by  an  already  absolutely  depotentiated  Logos,  or  by  an  act 
of  power  on  the  part  of  the  Logos,  which  is  at  the 
same  time  an  act  of  self-depotentiation;  but  consists  in  a 
voluntary  act,  by  which  the  Logos  becomes  a  human  life 
centre,  without  His  power  becoming  exhausted  in  the  act. 
The  passivity  of  the  depotentiated  Logos,  and  helpless 
subjection  to  the  flesh,  in  the  incarnate  state  also  dis- 
appear; for  to  whatever  extent  the  laws  of  physical  nature 
have  power  over  the  Logos,  in  that  state  they  have  it 
by  His  own  consent.  For  the  same  reason,  this  new  form 
of  the  theory  is  not  open  to  the  charge  of  making  the  Lo- 
gos, by  one  act  of  self-depotentiation,  incapable  of  dis- 
playing His  gracious  love  in  connection  with  a.  large  part  of 
his  human  experience.  While  the  Logos  as  man  passes 
through  the  unconscious  life  of  childhood,  He  is  conscious 
of  this  stage  of  His  incarnate  being,  and  shows  His  love  by 

and  consciously  held  the  opposite  view.  The  doctrine  of  Zanchius,  however,  is 
simply  a  repetition  of  that  taught  by  Damascenus.  ( Vid.  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  104,  in 
a  long  and  very  scholastic  note  on  the  various  senses  of  the  words  "subsistence  " 
and  "  substance,"  and  on  the  use  of  them  by  the  Reformed  in  connection  with  the 
Incarnation).  In  connection  with  Zanchius,  another  instance  may  be  mentioned 
of  Ebrard's  habit  of  perverting  the  meaning  of  citations,  occurring  in  the  same 
place.  He  represents  Zanchius  as  teaching  that,  in  the  Incarnation,  the  Logos 
became  a  limited  Being.  The  ground  of  this  representation  is  the  following  cita- 
tion: "Christus  in  ea  assumpta  forma  servi  sese  evacuavit  omni  sua  divina  gloria, 
omnipotentia,  omnipresentia,  omniscientia.  Factus  est  ex  ditissimo  pauperimus, 
ex  omnipotente  infirmus,  ex  omnisciente  ignarus,  ex  immenso  finitus."  These 
words,  taken  by  themselves,  might  naturally  suggest  an  absolute  surrender  of  the 
divine  attributes  named,  at  least  in  the  eternal  form.  But  the  following  words  of 
Zanchius,  not  quoted  by  Ebrard,  show  that  the  former  author  had  no  intention  of 
teaching  any  such  doctrine:  "  non  quod,"  Zanchius  continues,  "reipsa  desient 
esse,  quod  erat  iv  /xofxptj  Geov,  sed  quod  in  hac  forma  servi  sicut  factus  est  ex 
Deo  homo,  sic  ex  Domino  servus,  ex  ditissimo  pauperimus,  ex  omnipotente  infirmus, 
ex  omnisciente  ignarus,  ex  immortali  mortalis,  ex  immenso  finitus,  ex  ubique  prae- 
senti,  certis  locis  circumscriptus,  denique  ex  aequali  cum  Patre,  valde  minor  Patre; 
a^.  proinde  quod  secundum  hanc  naturam  et  formam  servi,  non  potuit  dici  omni- 
potens,  omniscius,  ubique  praesens."     Zanchius,  De  Filii  Dei  Incarnatione,  c.  ii 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  18c 

consenting  to  pass  through  it.  While  escaping  these  diffi- 
culties besetting  the  theory  of  an  absolute  metaphysical 
kenosis,  Martensen's  doctrine  seems  to  satisfy  the  demands 
of  the  ethical  kenosis  taught  in  Scripture.  The  self-empty- 
ing ascribed  to  the  Logos  by  the  apostle  does  not  neces- 
sarily require  absolute  physical  depotentiation,  but  only 
that  the  Logos  shall  limit  Himself  so  far  as  the  incarnate 
state  is  concerned,  and  shall  be  able  to  predicate  of  Him- 
self subjection  to  the  limits  of  that  state.  Nor  does  it 
appear  very  difficult  to  reconcile  this  view  with  the  ex- 
change of  form  which,  according  to  the  most  correct 
exegesis,  seems  to  be  taught  in  the  passage  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Philippians.  Granting  that  the  kenosis  involved  a 
giving  up  of  divine  form,  and  a  taking  upon  Him  on  the 
part  of  the  Logos,  in  its  stead,  of  the  form  of  a  servant  in 
the  likeness  of  man,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  Logos 
ceased  absolutely  to  be  what  He  was;  all  that  necessarily 
follows  is,  that  the  two  forms  were  not  combined  in  the  in- 
carnate life  of  the  Logos.  Notwithstanding  what  is  said 
there,  it  may  be  that  the  Logos  has  a  double  life — one  in 
the  man  Christ  Jesus;  one  as  the  world-governing,  world- 
illuminating  Logos.  Such  a  double  life  is  certainly  not 
taught  in  the  passage,  but  neither  is  it  formally  excluded; 
nor  can  it  be  held  to  be  excluded  by  implication,  unless  it 
can  be  shown  that  the  doctrine  of  a  double  life  is  incom- 
patible with  the  condescension  of  the  Son  of  God  implied 
in  the  Incarnation,  and  evacuates  His  self-humiliation  of  all 
real  ethical  significance.  If  the  contrary  of  this  be  true, 
then  the  apostle  had  simply  no  occasion  to  pronounce  on 
the  question  whether  the  kenosis  was  absolute  or  relative 
only;  it  was  enough  for  his  purpose  to  emphasize  its  reality 
with  reference  to  the  incarnate  state;  so  that,  for  example, 
Jesus  should  not  be  a  child  merely  in  outward  seeming, 
but  in  very  truth,  speaking  as  a  child,  thinking  as  a  child, 
understanding  as  a  child.  Whatever  the  form  of  God  may 
mean,  three  positions  may  be  taken  up  as  to  what  the  apos- 
tle meant  to  teach  concerning  it  in  connection  with  the 
Incarnation.  It  may  be  held  that  he  meant  to  teach,  either 
that  the  Logos  retained  the  form  of  God  in  becoming  man, 
or  that  He  absolutely  renounced  the  divine  form  in  becom- 


190  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

ing  man,  or  that  in  becoming  man  the  Logos  entered  intc 
a  form  of  existence  which  involved  a  real  renunciation  of 
the  divine  form,  whether  absolute  or  otherwise  not  being 
said,  or  possibly  not  even  thought  of.  The  first  position  is 
that  taken  up  by  the  Fathers:  the  second  is  the  view  which 
naturally  commends  itself  to  advocates  of  a  metamorphic 
or  semi-metamorphic  kenosis,  like  Gess  and  Ebrard;  the 
third  is  the  position  which  best  fits  in  to  the  hypothesis 
of  a  double  life  taught  by  Martensen.  It  is  a  perfectly 
feasible  position.  Of  course,  even  if  allowed,  this  view  of 
the  apostle's  meaning  does  not  prove  the  hypothesis  in 
question;  it  simply  leaves  room  for  it.  But  that  is  all 
that  is  wanted  to  legitimate  it  as  a  hypothesis  intended  tc 
cover  and  account  for  all  the  facts  of  our  Lord's  history, 
without  creating  more  or  greater  difficulties  than  it  solves. 
That  this  hypothesis  has  no  difficulties  of  its  own  to  meet, 
cannot  indeed  be  pretended.  The  idea  of  a  "  double  life  ' 
of  the  Logos  raises  speculative  questions  which  Martensen 
has  not  attempted  to  answer,  and  which  have  not  been 
satisfactorily  cleared  up  by  those  who  have  made  the  at- 
tempt. It  is  frankly  admitted  by  some  that  the  double  life 
has  the  appearance  of  positing  a  double  personality,  a  double 
ego;  but  it  is  explained  that  this  appearance  vanishes  as 
soon  as  we  more  closely  consider  the  relation  of  time  and 
eternity  as  not  temporal  but  causal.  That  being  duly 
weighed,  we  shall  see  our  way  to  holding  at  once  a  real 
kenosis,  and  the  possession,  yea,  the  use,  without  conceal- 
ment, of  the  divine  glory  (S6ia)  on  the  part  of  the  incarnate 
Son  of  God.1  But  even  after  we  have  thought  sufficiently 
long  and  intensely  on  the  relation  referred  to,  trying  to 
conceive  it  as  directed  till  the  brain  grows  weary,  we  may 
still  find  such  a  combination  hard  to  conceive,  and  ask  our- 
selves, how  can  the  same  mind  be  conscious  and  unconscious, 
finite  and  infinite,  ignorant  and  omniscient,  at  the  same 
moment?2     It  is  indeed  a  hard  problem,  but  in  justice  it 

1  So  SchOberlein ;  see  Appendix,  Note  E. 

5  Hodge,  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii.  p.  435,  states,  as  a  conclusive  objectioc 
to  Ebrard's  theory,  which  he  understands  as  teaching  a  double  life  of  the  Logos, 
that  "  it  assumes  that  the  same  individual  mind  can  be  conscious  and  unconscious 
finite  and  infinite,  ignorant  and  omniscient,  at  the  same  time." 


Modern  Kenotic   Theories.  191 

must  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  is,  in  one  form  or  another,  a 
problem  which  presents  itself  to  all  who  believe  in  the  real 
Incarnation  of  an  undepotentiated  Logos.  For  Martensen 
and  those  who  think  with  him,  the  problem  is,  how  can 
one  and  the  same  mind  (that  of  the  Logos)  be  at  once  con- 
scious and  unconscious,  omniscient  and  ignorant  ?  foi 
Schneckenburger  and  Dorner,  and  such  as  agree  with  them, 
the  problem  is,  how  can  one  and  the  same  person  be  at 
once  conscious  and  unconscious,  omniscient  and  ignorant 
-  the  former  in  the  Logos  per  se,  the  latter  in  the  human 
soul  of  the  child  or  the  man  Jesus  ? 

On  the  whole,  with  every  desire  to  give  the  kenotic  theory 
a  fair  and  candid  hearing,  one  cannot  but  feel  that  there  are 
difficulties  connected  with  it  which  "  puzzle  "  the  mind  and 
give  the  judgment  "  pause,"  and  dispose  to  acquiescence  in  the 
cautious  opinion  of  a  German  theologian,  more  than  half 
Inclined  to  support  a  hypothesis  in  favour  with  many  of  his 
countrymen:  "The  relations  of  eternity  and  time,  of  the 
ethical  and  physical,  of  the  Incarnation  to  the  primitive 
man,  ofthe  historical  God-man  to  the  previous  activity  of  the 
Logos;  the  true  and  the  untrue  in  Apollinarism,  and  the 
bearing  of  this  hypothesis  on  the  d6vyxwov,  must  be  made 
clearer  and  more  comprehensible  than  heretofore,  before  the 
full  scientific  and  practical  fruit  of  recent  Christological 
speculation  can  be  reaped,"  1  or  even,  it  may  be  added,  rightly 
judged  of  as  to  its  quality.  One  may  well  be  excused,  in- 
deed, for  assuming  this  attitude  of  suspended  judgment, 
not  merely  in  reference  to  the  kenotic  theories,  but  towards 
all  the  speculative  schemes  we  have  had  occasion  to  notice 
in  this  lecture.  The  hypothesis  of  a  double  life,  of  a  gradual 
Incarnation,  and  of  a  depotentiated  Logos,  are  all  legitimate 
enough  as  tentative  solutions  of  a  hard  problem;  and  those 
who  require  their  aid  may  use  any  one  of  them  as  a  prop 
around  which  faith  may  twine.  But  it  is  not  necessary  to 
adopt  any  one  of  them;  we  are  not  obliged  to  choose  be- 
tween them;  we  may  stand  aloof  from  them  all;  and  it  may 

1  Nitzsch,  System  der  Christlichen  Lehre,  sechste  Auflage,  p.  262,  in  a  note  en 
Liebner's  Christologie,  which  he  characterizes  as  "der  bedeutendste  Fortschrid 
der  speculativen  Lehre  vom  gottmenschlichen  Leben  und  Bewusstsein  zur  Bench- 
tigung  der  kirchlichen  und  der  beiden  confessioneller  Lehrarten  und  Formeln." 


192  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

be  best  when  faith  can  afford  to  dispense  with  their  services. 
For  it  is  not  good  that  the  certainties  of  faith  should  lean 
too  heavily  upon  uncertain  and  questionable  theories.  Wis- 
dom dictates  that  we  should  clearly  and  broadly  distinguish 
between  the  great  truths  revealed  to  us  in  Scripture,  and 
the  hypotheses  which  deep  thinkers  have  invented,  for  the 
purpose  of  bringing  these  truths  more  fully  within  the  grasp 
of  their  understandings.  My  esteemed  predecessor  in  this 
lectureship,  Principal  Rainy,  has  said  :  "  If  there  are  sifting 
times  before  us,  the  effect  will  probably  be  to  compel  us  with 
more  stringency,  with  more  discriminating  regard  to  all 
considerations  bearing  on  each  point,  to  determine  how 
much  we  can  really  say  we  know,  how  far  we  can  say  Scrip- 
ture designed  to  guide  our  thought  to  this  result,  to  this 
alternative,  to  this  resting-place."  Applying  this  most 
needful  discipline  to  the  great  subject  of  our  present  studies, 
we  shall  probably  find,  after  the  most  painstaking  inquiry, 
that  what  we  know  reduces  itself  as  nearly  as  possible  to  the 
axioms  enumerated  in  our  first  lecture,  and  that  the  effect, 
though  not  the  design,  of  theories  of  Christ's  person,  has 
been  to  a  large  extent  to  obscure  some  of  these  elementary 
truths, — the  unity  of  the  person,  or  the  reality  of  the  humanity, 
or  the  divinity  dwelling  within  the  man,  or  the  voluntariness 
and  ethical  value  of  the  state  of  humiliation.  That  is,  cer- 
tainties have  been  sacrificed  for  uncertainties,  facts  for  hy- 
potheses, faith  for  speculation.  If  this  be  the  testimony  of 
history,  then  the  lesson  is  plain  :  Be  content  to  walk  by 
faith,  and  take  care  that  no  ambitious  attempt  to  walk  by 
sight  rob  you  of  any  cardinal  truth  relating  to  Him  in  whom 
dwelleth  all  the  fulness  of  the  Godhead  bodilv. 


LECTURE  V. 

MODERN  HUMANISTIC  THEORIES  OF  CHRIST'S  PERSON. 

THE  discussions  contained  in  the  three  preceding  lectures 
leave  on  the  mind  the  impression  that  the  person  of  Christ 
is  a  great  mystery.  The  catholic  believer,  who  sees  in 
Christ  God  manifest  in  the  flesh,  frankly  confesses  the  mys- 
tery. For,  while  he  accepts  with  unfeigned  truth  the  doc- 
trine of  the  Incarnation,  and  finds  in  that  truth,  on  its  ethical 
side,  rest  to  his  spirit,  he  feels  and  owns  the  speculative  or 
scientific  construction  of  Christ's  person,  as  God  incarnate, 
to  be  a  hard  if  not  an  insoluble  problem.  The  more  he 
studies  the  history  of  past  attempts  at  its  solution,  and 
observes  how  opinion  has  oscillated  between  Nestorian 
duality  and  Monophysite  unity,  and  how  open  to  criticism 
are  the  recent  essays  of  the  Kenotic  school  to  construct  a 
Christology  not  liable  to  these  objections,  the  less  he  will 
be  inclined  for  himself  to  undertake  the  task;  while  still 
clinging  with  unabated  earnestness  to  a  dogma  which  gives 
him  a  God  who  can  condescend  and  perform  morally  heroic 
acts,  and  earn  for  Himself  men's  devoted  love  by  a  sublime 
career  of  self-humiliation  and  self-sacrifice. 

It  cannot  be  doubted  that  the  mystery  which  envelops 
the  doctrine  of  Christ's  person,  as  set  forth  in  the  creed, 
presents  a  strong  temptation  to  desert  the  catholic  foun- 
dation, and  to  refuse  to  see  in  the  Incarnation  "  the  pillar 
and  ground  of  the  truth."  Many  in  recent  years  have  yielded 
to  the  temptation,  and  have  adopted  purely  humanistic 
views  of  the  subject.  At  the  root  of  this  departure  from  the 
catholic  faith,  in  the  case  of  many,  is  a  naturalistic  philos- 
ophy, which  refuses  to  recognise  the  miraculous  in  the  con- 


194  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

stitution  of  Christ's  person  as  in  every  other  sphere.  In  the 
case  of  some,  however,  dissent  is  professedly  based  not  on 
philosophy,  but  on  exegesis.  Even  in  the  case  of  those 
whose  belief  is  determined  by  philosophic  bias,  the  attitude 
assumed  is  not  always  precisely  the  same.  There  are  shades 
and  degrees  of  naturalism,  and  in  giving  an  account  of  the 
naturalistic  views  of  Christ's  person  it  will  conduce  to  ac- 
curacy to  attend  to  these  distinctions. 

Those  who  advocate  a  purely  humanistic  view  of  our 
Lord's  person,  on  whatever  ground,  may  be  divided  into 
five  classes.  First,  there  are  those  who  take  their  stand 
on  absolute,  thoroughgoing  naturalism,  refusing  to  recog- 
nise miracle  in  any  sphere,  physical  or  moral,  and  there- 
fore declining  to  accept  even  the  old  Unitarian  view  of 
Christ,  according  to  which,  while  only  a  man,  He  was  yet 
a  perfect  man.  Next,  there  are  others  who,  while  natural- 
istic in  their  philosophic  proclivities,  shrink  from  the 
thoroughgoing  application  of  the  principles  with  which 
they  secretly  sympathize,  and  though  readily  consenting 
to  banish  the  supernatural  from  the  physical  sphere,  at  the 
expense  of  philosophic  consistency  retain  it  in  the  ethical, 
and  with  the  Catholic  Church  confess  the  sinlessness  of 
Jesus.  A  third  party,  though  really  at  one  with  the  former 
of  these  two  schools  in  opinion,  side  with  the  latter  in  feel- 
ing, and,  while  in  no  instance  and  in  no  sphere  recognising 
the  veritably  miraculous,  nevertheless  endeavour  in  their 
whole  delineation  of  Christ's  life  and  character  to  embrace 
in  the  picture  as  much  as  possible  of  the  extraordinary  and 
wonderful.  To  these  three  phases  of  modern  naturalistic 
opinion  concerning  the  Founder  of  our  faith  may  be  added 
a  fourth,  that,  viz.,  characteristic  of  those  who,  while  im- 
bued with  the  scientific  spirit  of  our  time,  and  paying  great 
deference  to  the  incredulous  attitude  of  science  towards  the 
miraculous,  can  scarcely  be  regarded  as  occupying  any 
definite  philosophic  position.  Men  belonging  to  this  school 
are  quite  willing  to  accept  the  account  Jesus  gave  of  Him- 
self, as  far  as  they  can  gather  it  from  the  evangelic  records. 
Turning  away  from  the  multifarious  theological  controver- 
sies concerning  the  person  of  Christ,  as  matters  which  they 
cannot  understand,  and  with  which  they  have  no  sympathy, 


Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    195 

they  go  back  to  the  fountainhead,  and  try  to  put  them- 
selves in  the  position  of  those  who  were  eye  and  ear  wit- 
nesses of  the  Word,  and  to  form  for  themselves  an  impres- 
sion of  ITim  at  first  hand.  And  the  impression  they  do  form 
is  very  much  the  same  as  that  expressed  by  Peter  at  Caesa- 
rea-Philippi  when  he  said,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
the  living  God."  When  asked  what  they  mean  by  such 
words,  they  reply  in  effect,  We  cannot  tell.  "  The  power 
of  Christ  is  to  be  felt,  not  explained."  You  may,  if  you  like, 
manufacture  theological  dogmas  out  of  them;  it  is  quite 
possible  that  they  can  "by  the  kind  of  ingenuity  common 
among  professional  theologians  be  brought  within  the  proper 
lines  of  accepted  opinion."  But  it  is  not  worth  while  to  do 
so;  it  is  "a  pitiful  waste  of  time."1  Finally,  the  fifth  class 
embraces  all  those  who,  while  agreeing  with  naturalistic 
theologians  in  rejecting  the  catholic  doctrine,  do  so  not  on 
speculative  grounds,  but  on  the  ground  of  positive  exegesis. 
To  all  these  schools  of  opinion  the  person  of  Christ  is  a 
mystery  not  less  than  to  those  who  cordially  accept  as 
their  own  belief  the  creeds  of  the  Church  Catholic.  To 
whom  shall  we  go  to  escape  mystery  ?  The  personality 
of  his  beloved  Master  was  a  great  mystery  to  the  disciple 
Peter.  But  was  it  less  of  a  mystery  to  the  multitude  which 
was  broken  up  into  parties  in  reference  to  the  question, 
Who  is  this  Son  of  Man  ? — some  saying  He  is  John  the 
Baptist,  others  He  is  Elias,  and  others  He  is  Jeremias,  or 
one  of  the  prophets  ?  In  like  manner,  it  is  vain  for  one  who 
is  perplexed  by  the  mystery  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  con- 
cerning Christ  to  go  in  hope  of  relief  to  any  one  of  the 
parties  we  have  discriminated  as  existing  in  our  day.  One 
and  all  of  them,  whether  confessedly  or  not,  believe  in  a 
Christ  who  is  a  mystery;  insomuch  that  the  element  of 
mysteriousness  must  be  set  aside  altogether  as  a  test  of 
truth  or  falsehood,  and  our  faith  be  made  to  rest  on  entirely 
different  grounds.  It  may  be  worth  while  to  enter  into 
some  detail  in  proof  of  this  assertion;  for  it  is  a  great  help 
to  faith  to  realize  distinctly  and  clearly  the  alternatives. 
Simon  Peter  having  asked  himself  the  question,  To  whom 
shall  we  go  if  we   leave   Jesus  ?  and    having  clearly  per- 

1   Vid.  Haweis,  Current  Coin,  pp.  312,  313. 


196  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

ceived  that  he  could  not  better  his  position,  remained 
where  he  was,  contenting  himself  with  the  Master  he  had 
hitherto  followed  in  spite  of  all  drawbacks.  So  we,  when 
tempted  to  abandon  the  conception  of  Christ  which  the 
Church  has  taught  us,  because  of  its  acknowledged  diffi- 
culties, do  well  to  ask  ourselves,  Shall  we  escape  difficulty 
by  exchanging  that  conception  for  any  other  offered  us  by 
current  opinions  ?  and  to  take  pains  to  arrive  at  a  well- 
considered  answer. 

1.  The  first  of  the  five  above  specified  forms  of  current 
opinion  concerning  Christ,  that  of  thoroughgoing  natural- 
ism, does  not  homologate  the  sentiment  of  the  apostle, 
"  confessedly  great  is  the  mystery  of  godliness,"  as  pre- 
sented in  the  history  and  character  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 
It  flatters  itself  that  by  the  consistent  unflinching  appli- 
cation of  its  fundamental  principle,  the  miraculous  impos- 
sible, to  the  evangelic  biography,  it  gets  rid  of  all  mystery. 
It  finds  there,  indeed,  a  marvel  of  piety,  but  no  miracle;  a 
singularly  good  and  wise  man  worthy  of  all  love  and  ad- 
miration, but  no  sinless  perfect  being;  a  perfect  man  being 
a  breach  in  the  continuity  of  human  history,  a  contradiction 
of  the  law  that  all  which  is  real  is  relative,  amoral  miracle, 
and  therefore  an  impossibility  not  less  than  the  raising  of 
a  dead  man  to  life  would  be.  But  do  the  advocates  of  this 
view  really  get  rid  of  all  mysterious  elements  in  the  life  of 
Jesus,  or  do  they  accomplish  more  than  to  satisfy  them- 
selves that  on  their  principles  there  ought  to  be  none  ? 
Let  us  see.  In  the  first  place,  if  Jesus  be  a  man  chargeable 
with  sin,  as  He  is  bound  to  be  on  their  principles,  how 
comes  it  to  pass  that  it  is  so  hard,  even  for  those  who  applj? 
themselves  to  the  task  with  every  good-will,  to  accuse 
Him  of  sin  on  the  basis  of  the  Gospel  record  ?  We  know 
that  many  attempts  have  been  made  by  men  of  this  school 
to  establish  a  charge  of  moral  culpability  against  Jesus, 
and  we  also  know  how  very  much  the  reverse  of  signal 
successes  these  have  been.  In  absence  of  more  important 
material  for  such  an  accusation,  the  blasphemers  of  the 
Son  of  Man  have  been  obliged  to  content  themselves  with 
such  paltry  things  as  these:  that  harsh  word  to  His  mother 
at  Cana;  the  perversely  mystic  style  of  the  sermon  on  the 


Modem  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    1 97 

bread  of  life  in  the  synagogue  of  Capernaum,  "bristling 
with  statements  fitted  to  irritate  and  disgust  hearers," 
the  sentence  in  the  intercessory  prayer,  "  I  pray  not  for 
the  world,  but  for  them  whom  Thou  hast  given  me;"  the 
direction  given  to  the  disciples  to  let  an  offender  who  re- 
fuses to  confess  his  fault  be  unto  them  as  an  heathen  man 
and  a  publican;  the  harsh  treatment  of  the  Syro-Phcenician 
woman;  the  heartless  reply  to  the  disciple  who  would  bury 
his  father,  "  Let  the  dead  bury  their  dead."  '  Contemptible 
arguments  surely  to  bring  against  the  doctrine  of  Christ's 
sinlessness,  which  it  were  a  mistake  in  an  apologist  to 
honour  with  a  serious  reply,  but  which  well  deserve  the  in- 
dignant rebuke  of  a  distinguished  American  divine:  "These 
and  such  like  specks  of  fault  are  discovered,  as  they  think, 
in  the  life  of  Jesus.  So  graceless  in  our  conceit  have  we 
of  this  age  grown,  that  we  can  think  it  a  point  of  scholarly 
dignity  and  reason  to  spot  the  only  perfect  beauty  that  has 
ever  graced  our  world  with  such  discovered  blemishes  as 
these  !  As  if  sin  could  ever  need  to  be  made  out  against 
a  real  sinner  in  this  small  way  of  special  pleading;  or  as  if 
it  were  ever  the  way  of  sin  to  err  in  single  particles  or 
homoeopathic  quantities  of  wrong.  A  more  just  sensibility 
would  denounce  this  malignant  style  of  criticism  as  a  heart- 
less and  really  low-minded  pleasure  in  letting  down  the 
honours  of  goodness."  2  I  sympathize  with  Bushnell's  scorn 
and  indignation,  but  at  the  same  time  I  feel  that  the  small 
captious  critics  of  Jesus  are  to  be  pitied  as  well  as  de- 
nounced. Their  philosophy  requires  them  to  speak  evil 
words  against  the  Son  of  Man;  and  if  the  materials  for 
cursing  are  very  scanty,  what  course  is  left  for  the  Balaams 
of  modern  unbelief  than  to  make  the  most  of  such  as  are 
available  ?  In  no  other  way  can  we  account  for  the  fact 
of  such  a  grave  and  serious  writer  as  Keim  condescending 
to  notice  the  incidents  already  referred  to,  and  others  of 
similar  nature,  as  blemishes  in  the  character  of  Jesus  ' 

Some  writers  of  this  school  are  fair  enough  to  admit   that 
the  faults  chargeable  on  our  Lord  are  few  and  small,  and 

1  See  Pecaut,  Le  Christ  et  la  Conscience,  p.  250. 
1  Bushnell,  Arature  and  the  Supernatural,  chap.  x. 
8   Vid.  Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara,  vol.  iii.  p.  641. 


1 98  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

find  themselves  under  the  necessity  of  accounting  for  the 
fact,  in  harmony  with  the  assumption  of  naturalistic  phil- 
osophy, that  He  musj:  have  been,  like  all  other  men,  in  seri- 
ous respects  morally  defective.  One  thing  very  specially 
insisted  on  in  this  connection  is  the  fragmentary  nature  of 
our  sources  of  information.  "  Suppose,"  says  Pecaut,  "  no 
reliable  indication  of  imperfection  should  be  found  in  the 
history  of  Jesus,  what  inference  could  be  drawn  therefrom  ? 
We  possess  only  fragments  of  His  biography,  and  fragments 
relative  to  His  public  life;  that  is,  to  that  which  is  best  in 
the  history  of  a  man  devoted  to  the  good  of  others.  Do 
you  not  know  that  the  discourses  and  the  public  acts  of 
every  one  of  us  are  better  than  our  internal  state  ?  Is  that 
hypocrisy?  God  forbid:  only  the  best  of  men  speak  and 
act  as  they  wish  to  be  in  the  bottom  of  their  hearts.  But 
what  information  have  we  as  to  the  infancy  of  Jesus,  His 
private  and  family  history,  and  finally,  as  to  His  inner  life  ?  " ' 
We  might  reply,  We  have  the  testimony  of  those  who  knew 
Him  intimately  during  the  period  of  His  public  ministry, 
and  had  access  to  information  concerning  the  antecedent 
period,  who  even  in  His  lifetime  spoke  of  Jesus  as  the  Holy 
One,  and  after  His  death  spoke  of  Him  as  such  absolutely 
and  without  qualification.  But  we  are  told  that  the  testi- 
mony of  the  disciples  and  apostles,  while  justly  making  a 
favourable  impression  on  the  whole,  does  not  go  beyond 
the  similar  testimony  borne  by  Xenophon  to  Socrates,  who 
nevertheless,  by  his  own  confession,  was  not  a  sinless  man.1 
We  are  thus  thrown  back  on  what  is,  after  all,  the  most 
convincing  evidence  of  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus,  viz.,  the 
utter  absence  of  all  trace  of  any  consciousness  of  sin  on 
His  part.  It  is  surely  a  very  striking  thing  to  find  one 
whose  moral  perceptions  were  so  delicate;  who  knew  so 
well  what  was  in  man;  who  could  see  beneath  a  fair  ex- 
terior rottenness  and  dead  men's  bones;  who  discerned 
fleshly  sin  even  in  licentious  thoughts  and  looks;  who  had 
such  abhorrence  of  vanity,  pride,  ostentation,  and  other 
sins  of  the  spirit  universally  committed  in  the  world,  and 
commonly   treated    as    no    sins    at    all,    bearing    Himself 

1  Le  Christ  et  la  Conscience,  p.  240. 

•  Keim,  Jesu  von  Nazara,  vol.  iii.  p.  641. 


Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    199 

throughout  as  one  who  had  no  part  in  these  sins  of  the  flesh 
and  spirit,  though  not  exempted  from  experience  of  temp- 
tation. It  is  doubtless  a  ready  suggestion  that  admiring 
attached  disciples  were  not  likely  to  record  words  or  facts 
indicative  of  a  sense  of  moral  shortcoming.  But  it  deserves 
to  be  noticed  that  the  evangelists  have  not  been  afraid  to 
record  facts  which  might  easily  be  mistaken  for,  and  have 
in  fact  been  mistaken  for,  proofs  of  moral  infirmity,  as,  e.g., 
the  clearing  of  the  temple,  and  very  specially  the  great 
philippic  against  the  religious  heads  of  the  people,  which 
Renan  and  others  have  regarded  as  an  evidence  that  Jesus 
had  lost  His  self-possession,  and  grown  intemperate  and  fan- 
atical in  feeling;  a  fact,  if  it  were  a  fact,  certainly  revealing 
great  moral  weakness.  Then  it  is  further  to  be  observed,, 
that  the  question  is  not  one  of  mere  suppression  of  incon- 
venient facts  which  might  reflect  on  the  character  of  one's 
hero.  The  real  state  of  the  case  is,  that  Jesus  throughout 
bears  Himself  as  no  one  could  who  had  the  consciousness 
of  moral  shortcoming.  By  artless  narration,  as  opposed  to 
artistic  invention,  the  evangelists  have  set  before  us  a  man 
who  seems  constantly  surrounded  by  the  sunlight  of  a  good 
conscience,  void  of  offence  towards  God  and  towards  men, 
entirely  exempt  from  the  dark  moods  of  men  who  have 
passed  through  moral  tragedies,  having  no  occasion  to  ex- 
claim with  a  Paul,  "  Oh,  wretched  man  that  I  am  !  "  or  to 
confess  that  the  good  He  would,  that  He  did  not;  and  the  evil 
He  would  not,  that  He  did.  Utterly  remote  from  Pelagian 
views  of  human  character  and  conduct,  He  walks  about  on 
this  earth  as  one  who  enjoys  perfect  unbroken  fellowship 
with  His  Father  in  heaven,  and  whose  relations  to  men  are 
regulated  wholly  by  the  love  of  righteousness  and  the  spirit 
of  mercy.  He  is  the  one  man  in  human  history  who 
seems  to  have  no  consciousness  of  sin,  His  only  relation  to 
the  sin  of  the  world,  to  all  appearance,  being  that  of  one 
who  bears  it  in  His  heart  as  a  burden  by  sympathy,  and 
who,  in  some  mysterious  way,  hopes  to  bear  it  away  and 
destroy  it;  not  a  sinner,  but  a  saviour  from  sin,  come  to 
save  the  morally  lost  by  His  love  in  life  and  in  death. 

This  absence  of  all  consciousness  of  moral  shortcoming  in 
one  characterized  by  such  exceptional  depth  and  strength 


200  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

of  moral  conviction,  is  a  second  element  of  mystery  in  the 
person  of  Christ,  which  must  greatly  puzzle  those  who  re- 
fuse to  see  in  Him  one  "  who  knew  no  sin."  Granting  that 
the  paucity  of  censurable  materials  in  His  recorded  public 
life  may  be  plausibly  explained,  this  phenomenon  cannot 
easily  be  accounted  for.  Had  Jesus  been  a  Greek,  it  might 
have  been  less  unintelligible;  for  the  spirit  of  the  Greeks 
was  much  more  sensitive  to  beauty  than  to  sin,  and  it  was 
possible  for  one  belonging  to  the  Hellenic  race  to  walk 
about  with  serene,  s'miling  countenance  and  light  heart, 
though  he  had  committed  moral  offences,  his  past  misdeeds 
possibly  present  to  his  consciousness  as  occurrences,  but  no 
burden  to  his  conscience  as  transgressions.  But  Jesus  be- 
longed to  a  race  which  had  been  trained  by  a  stern  legal 
discipline  to  regard  sin  as  a  terrible  reality.  By  the  law 
had  come  to  Him,  as  to  other  Jews,  if  not  the  knowledge 
of  sin,  at  least  a  highly  educated  conscience,  a  trained  fac- 
ulty of  discernment  between  right  and  wrong,  and  an  acute 
sense  of  the  importance  of  moral  distinctions.  And  the 
wonder  and  the  mystery  is,  that  with  the  Jewish  conscience 
did  not  come  to  this  man,  as  to  others,  the  ordinary  con- 
sciousness of  sin.  In  saying  this,  I  do  not  forget  that  there 
were  other  Jews  in  whom  something  superficially  resem- 
bling this  strange  combination  presented  itself,  self-satis- 
faction associated  with  the  habit  of  moral  discernment. 
There  were  men  who  could  see  and  severely  condemn  sin 
in  others,  and  yet  see  little  or  no  sin  in  themselves:  who 
beheld  the  mote  that  was  in  their  brother's  eye,  and  con- 
sidered not  the  beam  that  was  in  their  own;  who  could 
stand  in  the  temple  and  thank  God  that  they  were  not  as 
other  men,  and  with  much  unction  recite  their  own  virtues, 
while  drawing  out  a  catalogue  of  other  men's  vices.  There 
were  Pharisees,  with  consciences  like  a  policeman's  lantern, 
with  its  light  side  turned  outward  towards  the  breaker  of 
the  laws,  and  its  dark  side  towards  their  guardian.  But  we 
•cannot  account  for  the  mystery  connected  with  the  moral 
consciousness  of  Jesus  by  likening  Him  to  this  class  of 
men;  and  so  far  as  we  are  aware,  it  has  not  occurred  to  any 
one  to  suggest  such  a  solution.  Jesus  was  no  Pharisee;  He 
was  the  scourge  of  Pharisees,   the  unsparing  exposer  and 


Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    201 

denouncer  of  their  moral  obliquity,  hypocrisy,  and  pride; 
the  moral  antipodes  of  the  class  in  spirit  and  in  judgment, 
loving  those  whom  they  despised,  exalting  to  the  place  of 
supreme  importance  duties  and  virtues  which  they  neg- 
lected, and  regarding  as  trivialities  practices  which  seemed 
to  them  of  vital  moment.  And  yet  He  agreed  with  the 
Pharisees  in  this,  that  He  had  not  the  consciousness  of  sin; 
He  did  not,  He  could  not  say,  "  God  be  merciful  to  me  the 
sinner;  "  He  felt  not  the  need  of  repentance.  Would  not 
the  Son  of  Man  be  almost  tempted  to  regard  this  resem- 
blance as  a  misfortune  ?  He  who  so  intensely  loved  the 
publicans  and  sinners,  and  whose  spirit  shrank  back  with 
such  revulsion  and  loathing  from  Pharisaic  self-righteous- 
ness, would  rather  have  taken  His  place  with  the  poor 
publican  who  stood  afar  off  with  downcast  eyes,  and  smit- 
ing on  his  breast  exclaimed,  "  God  be  merciful  to  me  the 
sinner,"  than  with  the  self-satisfied  Pharisee  who  said, 
"  God,  I  thank  Thee  that  I  am  not  as  other  men  are."  He 
certainly  would  have  done  it  if  He  could,  and  He  did  that 
which  came  as  near  to  it  as  possible.  Since  He  could  not 
repent,  He  felt  for  those  who  needed  repentance;  since  He 
could  not  bear  the  burden  of  personal  demerit,  by  an  un- 
speakably deep  and  tender  sympathy  He  took  on  His  spirit 
the  burden  of  those  who  were  heavy  laden  with  guilt;  since 
He  could  not  know  sin,  He  made  Himself  a  sinner  by  iden- 
tifying Himself  so  closely  with  the  sinful  as  to  earn  the 
honourable  nickname  of  the  Sinner's  Friend. 

But  this  beautiful  unearthly  compassion  for  the  sinful  which 
has  earned  for  Jesus  the  blessings  of  so  many  that  were 
ready  to  perish,  reminds  us  of  yet  another  direction  in  which 
an  explanation  maybe  sought  for  the  mystery  of  His  moral 
self-consciousness.  It  may  be  supposed  that  His  serenity 
arose  out  of  His  own  faith  in  the  gospel  which  He  preached 
to  the  sinful,  the  gospel  of  God's  infinite  pardoning  mercy. 
He  was  happy  in  spite  of  shortcomings,  just  as  any  of  us 
may  be,  just  as  every  healthy-minded  Christian  is  who 
believes  that  God  has  forgiven  his  sin,  and  stands  in  the 
same  relation  to  him  as  if  sin  had  never  existed.  His  sky 
was  cloudless,  and  His  soul  full  of  sunlight,  because  the 
mists  engendered  by  an  evil  conscience  had    disappeared 


202  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

before  the  warm  beams  of  a  heavenly  Father's  boundless 
charity.  If  a  Paul  or  a  David  could  attain  to  a  joy  unmarred 
by  the  memory  of  past  transgression,  through  faith  in  the 
loving-kindness  and  multitudinous  tender  mercies  of  God, 
why  not  a  Jesus  ?  If  it  was  possible  for  a  weeping  penitent 
to  go  into  peace  on  hearing  the  soothing  words:  "Thy 
faith  hath  saved  thee,"  why  may  not  the  speaker  Himself 
have  entered  into  peace  by  the  same  door  ?  May  not  His 
confidence  in  the  power  of  faith  to  conduct  to  peace  have 
been  based  on  His  own  experience  ?  It  is  painful  to  one 
who  believes  in  the  Sinless  One  to  ask  such  questions,  but 
we  cannot  deny  that  from  the  point  of  view  of  those  who 
do  not  share  our  belief  they  are  not  irrelevant.  What,  then, 
shall  we  say  in  reply  ?  We  must  remind  unbelievers  of 
another  well-ascertained  fact  in  the  history  of  Jesus,  viz., 
that  He  claimed  to  be  the  Judge  of  men,  a  claim  which 
could  not  reasonably  be  made  except  by  one  who  stood  on 
a  different  moral  level  from  other  men.  The  fact  of  the 
claim  and  its  moral  significance  are  admitted  by  theologians 
of  eminence  belonging  to  the  naturalistic  school,  as,  e.g., 
by  Dr.  Baur  of  Tubingen.  This  able  writer,  it  need  hardly 
be  said,  has  no  faith  in  a  future  judgment  of  the  world,  as 
popularly  conceived.  In  his  hands  the  judicial  function  of 
Christ  resolves  itself  into  the  critical  power  of  the  truth. 
"  If,"  he  says,  "  we  regard  the  doctrine  and  activity  of  Jesus 
from  the  ethical  point  of  view,  under  which  it  is  to  be  placed 
•iccording  to  the  Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  the  parables,  it 
Delongs  thereto  essentially  that  that  doctrine  and  activity 
must  be  the  absolute  standard  for  the  judgment  of  the 
moral  worth  and  the  actions  and  conduct  of  men.  Accord- 
ing to  the  diverse  attitude  of  men  towards  the  doctrine  of 
Jesus,  as  the  ground  law  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  they  are 
divided  into  two  essentially  different  classes,  whose  moral 
worth,  brought  to  its  absolute  expression,  is  expressed  by 
the  contrast  of  everlasting  blessedness  and  everlasting 
damnation.  But  what  holds  in  the  first  place  of  the 
doctrine  of  Jesus,  holds  also  in  the  next  place  of  His  person, 
so  far  as  He  is  the  originator  and  promulgator  of  the  same. 
With  His  doctrine  His  person  is  inseparably  connected. 
He  is  the  concrete  embodiment  of  the  eternal  significance 


Modern  Humanistic  TheoiHes  of  Christ fs  Person.    203 

of  the  absolute  truth  of  His  doctrine.  Is  it  His  doctrine 
according  to  which  the  moral  worth  of  men  is  to  be  judged 
for  all  eternity  ?  then  He  it  is  who  speaks  the  sentence  as 
the  future  judge  of  men."  '  Now,  even  taking  Baur's  account- 
of  Christ's  judicial  function,  what  a  high  claim  it  involves  ! 
It  implies  that  Jesus  regarded  Himself  as  the  moral  idea 
realized.  For  His  claim  is  absolute,  not  relative.  His 
doctrine  concerning  the  judgment  is  not,  I  am  the  Judge 
in  so  far  as  I  am  in  my  own  person  a  realization  of  the 
ethical  ideal,  so  that  the  attitude  men  assume  towards  me 
(knowing  what  they  "do)  determines  their  attitude  towards 
that  ideal,  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  every  good  man  in 
proportion  as  he  realizes  in  his  character  the  ideal — not 
that,  but,  "  I  am  the  Judge,"  without  any  qualifying  "  in  so 
far."  It  is  true  that  the  disciples  are  promised  seats  beside 
the  King,  as  co-judges  with  Him  of  the  tribes  of  Israel, 
even  as  it  is  said  by  Paul  that  the  saints  shall  judge  the 
world.  But  there  is  a  wide  interval  between  the  judicial 
power  of  the  saint  or  apostle  and  that  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 
Jesus  is  the  Judge  Absolute,  all  others — saints,  apostles 
— are  judges  longo  intervallo,  and  only  in  so  far  as  they  ap- 
proximate the  ideal  which  He  alone  realizes.  That  He 
claimed  to  be  the  Judge  absolutely  appears  from  the  simple 
fact  of  His  representing  Himself  ordinarily  as  the  Judge 
exclusively,  without  any  mention  of  assessors,  or  with  such 
reference  to  other  beings  of  high  rank  as  puts  them  in  the 
position  of  mere  attendants;  as  in  the  account  of  the  judg- 
ment in  Matt,  xxv.,  which  opens  with  the  words,  "  When 
the  Son  of  Man  shall  come  in  His  glory,  and  all  the  holy 
angels  with  Him,  then  shall  He  sit  on  the  throne  of  His 
glory." 

In  view  of  the  claim  to  be  the  Judge,  it  is  impossible  to 
regard  the  unburdened  condition  of  Christ's  conscience  as 
the  simple  result  of  strong  faith  in  divine  forgiveness. 
That  claim  is  rather  a  proof  that  He  who  advances  it  does 
not  feel  the  need  of  forgiveness;  and  if  the  state  of  mind  in- 
dicated by  the  claim  be  regarded  as  a  hallucination,  then 
the  claim  itself  must  be  reckoned  as  a  third  element  of 
mystery  in  the  moral  aspect  of  Christ's  person,  which  can- 

1  Neue  Testamentliche  Tkeologie,  p.  no. 


204  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

not  but  perplex  those  who  refuse  to  see  in  Him  anything 
out  of  the  common  course.     Here  is  one  who  is  ex  hypotlicsi 
a  sinner,  and,  judging  from  the  analogy  of  other  men  of 
outstanding  force  and  magnitude  of  character,  probably  a 
great  sinner,  arrogating  to  Himself  the  position  of  Judge 
of  the  sinful,  entitled,  in  discharge  of  His  official  functions, 
to  say  to  the  impenitent,  "  Depart  from  me,  ye  cursed,  into 
the  eternal  fire."     Is  this  a  part  we  should  expect  such  an 
one  to  aspire  to  ?     Is  the  claim  to  exercise  such  tremen- 
dous functions  a  psychologically  probable  one  in  the  mouth 
of  one  who  is  himself  a  transgressor  ?     We  could  imagine 
one  who  had  sinned  even  grievously,  and  repented  of  his 
sin,  preaching  the  doctrine  of  a   judgment   to  come  with 
great  emphasis,  seeking  to  persuade  men  as  one  who  him- 
self knew  the  terror  of  the  Lord.     So  preached  judgment 
Paul,  the  penitent  and  pardoned  persecutor.     But  to  preach 
judgment  is  a  different  thing  from  proclaiming  oneself  the 
Judge.     Or  we  could  imagine  one  who  had  been  character- 
ized by  great  moral  frailty,  and  who  was  in  the  habit  of 
looking  on  his  own  shortcomings  and  those  of  other  men 
in  a  genial,  indulgent  way,  as  the  effect  of  temperament, 
circumstances,  and  so  forth,  after  the  fashion  of  a  Rousseau 
or   a    Burns,  denying  a  judgment  to    come;    representing 
Death  as  the  great  redeemer,  setting  the  soul  free  from  its 
base  corporeal  companion  to  rise  to  its  native  element  of 
goodness,  and  to  the  society  of  blessed  spirits  who  delight 
in  virtue.     But  not  only  to  be  a  preacher  of  judgment,  but 
to  proclaim  oneself  the  Judge,  becomes  none  save  one  who 
is   at    once   holy,    harmless,    undefiled,    and    in    character 
separate  from  sinners,  and  yet  able,  through  His  power  of 
sympathy  and  His  experience  of  temptation,  to  give  due 
weight  to  all  extenuating  considerations.     Such  an  one  the 
Scriptures  represent  Jesus  to  have  been — sinless,  therefore 
ntitled  to  be  the  Judge;  tempted  in  all  points  as  we  are, 
therefore  able  to  temper  judgment  with  mercy. 

In  the  foregoing  observations  I  have  confined  myself  to 

personal  character,  as  distinct  from  the  public  career, 

esus,  and  have  simply  sought  to  emphasize  these  three 

questions:   If  Jesus  was    the    sinful  erring  man  naturalism 

requires  Him  to  be,  whence  comes  it  that  it  is  so  difficult, 


Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    2o5 

from  the  record  of  His  life,  to  convince  Him  of  sin;  that  in 
His  whole  demeanour  no  trace  of  a  consciousness  of  moral 
shortcoming  can  be  discerned;  that  He  claims  to  Himself 
the  right  to  be  the  Judge  of  all  men  ?  When  we  pass  from 
this  restricted  region  of  inquiry  to  the  wider  sphere  of  the 
public  ministry,  materials  for  a  proof  that  to  naturalism  the 
character  of  Jesus  must  be  a  hopeless  puzzle  greatly  multi- 
ply on  our  hands.  Here,  indeed,  the  naturalistic  critic 
would  find  no  difficulty  in  convicting  the  subject  of  his 
criticism  of  sin  and  folly.  The  difficulty  rather  is  that  sin 
and  folly  are  so  apparent  and  glaring  on  naturalistic  princi- 
ples, that  it  becomes  hard  to  understand  how  they  could 
be  united  with  so  much  wisdom  and  goodness,  as  all  must 
confess  to  have  been  manifested  in  the  career  of  the  Prophet 
of  Nazareth.  The  central  points  of  interest  in  this  depart- 
ment are  the  claims  of  Jesus  to  be  the  Messiah,  and  the 
necessity  laid  upon  Him  by  that  claim  of  playing  the  part 
of  a  thaumaturge.  That  Jesus  did  make  such  a  claim,  and 
that  the  claim  carried  along  with  it  an  obligation  to  be,  or 
at  least  to  seem,  a  miracle-worker,  are  positions  generally 
admitted.  But  from  the  naturalistic  point  of  view,  the 
Messiah  idea  was  a  hallucination,  and  miracles  are  impos- 
sible. Consequently  Jesus,  in  giving  Himself  out  for  the  Mes- 
siah, if  not  a  deliberate  deceiver,  must  have  been  Himself 
the  victim  of  a  national  delusion,  and  in  undertaking  to  work 
miracles  must  have  degraded  Himself  to  the  level  of  a  con- 
jurer. But  how  to  reconcile  such  imposture,  self-delusion, 
and  quackery  with  the  wisdom  and  the  moral  simplicity  so 
conspicuous  in  Jesus  ?  Naturalism  is  here  obliged  to  make 
patronizing  apologies  for  its  hero,  in  order,  if  possible,  to 
mitigate  the  moral  contradictions  in  His  character.  Baur 
tells  us  that  Jesus  could  not  do  otherwise  than  claim  to  be 
the  Messiah,  if  He  wished  to  gain  for  His  religion  a  starting- 
point  from  which  it  could  go  forth  to  conquer  the  world. 
Christianity,  as  Jesus  conceived  it,  had  indeed  nothing 
narrow  or  Judaistic  about  it:  its  essential  characteristics 
were  spirituality  and  universality;  it  was  a  purely  moral 
religion,  and  therefore  a  religion  for  all  mankind.  But  then 
Jesus  Himself  was  a  Jew,  and  therefore  the  universal  re- 
ligion must  find  its  cradle  among  the  Jewish  people.     But 


206  The  Humiliation  of  CJirist. 

no  religious  movement  had  any  chance  of  taking  a  hold  on 
the  Jewish  mind  unless  it  consented  to  take  its  form  from 
the  Messianic  idea.  In  other  words,  Jesus,  in  order  to  gain 
influence  in  His  own  country,  and  so  to  make  a  beginning 
in  the  conquest  of  the  world,  must  call  Himself  the  Christ, 
and  offer  Himself  to  His  fellow-countrymen  as  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  Messianic  hope,  knowing  full  well  that  the 
hope,  as  cherished  by  them,  and  as  expressed  in  Old  Testa- 
ment prophecy,  was  a  dream  that  could  never  be  realized; 
accommodating  Himself  to  a  delusion  for  their  good,  and 
for  the  ultimate  good  of  the  world.  Similar  apologies  are 
made  by  Renan  for  the  thaumaturgic  element  in  Christ's 
career.  He  cannot  deny  that  actions  which  would  now  be 
considered  signs  of  folly  held  a  prominent  place  in  the  life 
of  Jesus.  His  historic  conscience  will  not  allow  him  to 
listen  too  much  to  nineteenth  century  repugnances,  and  to 
attempt  to  rescue  the  character  of  Jesus  by  suppressing 
facts  which  in  the  judgment  of  contemporaries  were  of  the 
first  importance.  But  he  does  not  feel  that  these  facts 
give  any  occasion  for  concern  about  the  character  of  Jesus. 
The  thaumaturgic  aspect  of  His  public  career  is  after  all 
but  a  spot  on  the  sun.  Who  would  think  of  sacrificing  to 
that  unwelcome  side  the  sublime  side  of  such  a  life  ?  It  is 
enough  to  say  that  the  miracles  of  Jesus  were  a  violence 
done  to  Him  by  His  age,  a  concession  extorted  from  Him 
by  a  temporary  necessity.  The  exorcist  and  the  thauma- 
turge have  passed  away,  but  the  religious  reformer  will  live 
for  ever.1  Plausible  apologies  both,  but  how  inconsistent 
with  the  well-ascertained  spirit  of  Him  who  said,  "  My 
kingdom  is  not  of  this  world  "  !  The  Jesus  of  Baur  and 
Renan  says  in  effect:  I  must  mix  a  certain  amount  of  the 
alloy  of  falsehood  with  the  pure  gold  of  truth  in  order  that 
it  may  gain  currency  in  the  world.  The  Jesus  of  the 
Gospels  says:  I  decline  to  act  on  the  principle  of  worldly 
prudence,  and  am  content  with  what  success  is  compatible 
with  perfect  truthfulness;  and  because  He  resolutely  adhered 
to  this  programme  the  world  found  Him  an  intolerable 
nuisance,  and  nailed  Him  to  a  cross. 

2.  But  I  must  leave  this  topic,  and  go  on  to  notice  very 

1    Vie  de  Jesus,  p.  26S. 


Modern  Humanistic  TJieories  of  Christ's  Person.    207 

briefly  the  second  of  the  five  forms  of  current  opinion  con- 
cerning the  Author  of  our  faith  above  enumerated,  that,  viz., 
which  sees  in  Him  no  sin,  and  devoutly  reveres  Him  as  the 
Ideal  Perfect  Man.  This  view  is  familiar  to  all  as  that  held 
by  Unitarians  such  as  Martineau  and  Channing,  but  we 
may  connect  it  here  with  the  name  of  Schleiermacher,  as 
having  in  his  system  a  peculiar  philosophic  significance. 
Schleiermacher's  doctrine  concerning  Christ  is  this:  As  the 
original  source  of  Christian  life,  He  must,  while  a  historical 
individual,  at  the  same  time  be  an  Ideal  Person,  in  whom 
the  ideal  of  humanity  is  fully  realized.  As  the  Ideal  Man, 
while  like  all  men,  in  virtue  of  the  identity  of  His  human 
nature,  He  differs  from  all  through  the  constant  vigour  of 
His  God-consciousness,  which  was  a  proper  being  of  God 
in  Him,  implying  absolute  freedom  from  moral  taint,  and 
from  intellectual  error  in  all  things  pertaining  to  His  mis- 
sion as  a  religious  teacher.  In  Christ  the  ideal  of  humanity 
was  for  the  first  time  realized;  man  as  at  first  created  fell 
short  of  the  ideal,  so  that  Christ  is  the  completion  and 
crown  of  the  creation.  It  will  be  seen  at  a  glance  that  this 
Christology,  though  coming  short  of  orthodoxy,  rises  above 
the  plane  of  naturalism  into  the  region  of  the  miraculous. 
Christ  is,  if  not  physically,  at  least  ethically,  a  miracle; 
He  alone  of  all  men  exhibiting  in  perfect  and  unvarying 
strength  the  God-consciousness,  and  maintaining  with  God 
a  fellowship  undisturbed  by  sin.  Now,  the  philosophic  sig- 
nificance of  this  Christology  as  taught  by  Schleiermacher 
is,  that  in  his  theology  it  is  a  departure  from  the  general 
tendency  of  his  system.  It  is  a  supernatural  element  in  a 
creed  which  is  predominantly  influenced  by  a  naturalistic, 
Pantheistic  spirit.  This  inconsistency  is  characteristic  of 
Schleiermacher.  He  is  neither  a  Pantheist  nor  a  Theist  in 
his  philosophy  and  theology,  but  a  mixture  of  both.  This 
fact  explains  the  difficulty  which  every  reader  of  the  Christ- 
licJie  Glatibe  feels  in  clearly  apprehending  the  author's 
meaning.  Schleiermacher,  unlike  most  Germans,  writes  a 
good  pure  style,  and  yet  somehow  you  feel  that  there  is  a 
haze  upon  the  page  which  prevents  you  from  seeing  dis- 
tinctly the  thoughts  presented.  You  read  the  passage 
again  with  increased  attention,  like  one  straining  his  eyes 


2oS  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

to  see  some  object  in  moonlight,  and  still  you  fail  to  see 
the  idea  clearly.  The  reason  is  that  it  is  moonlight  through 
which  you  are  looking — the  moonlight  of  Christian  faith 
reflected  from  the  Christian  consciousness  of  the  writer  upon 
the  dark  planet  of  a  Pantheistic  philosophy.  Strauss,  with 
his  usual  sagacity,  hit  the  truth  about  Schleiermacher  when 
he  said,  that  he  had  pounded  Christianity  and  Pantheism  to 
powder,  and  had  so  mixed  them  that  no  man  could  tell  where 
Pantheism  ended  and  where  Christianity  began.  We  can- 
not go  wrong,  however,  in  assuming  that  it  was  Christianity 
and  not  Pantheism  that  led  Schleiermacher  to  acknowledge 
in  clear  unambiguous  terms  the  sinlessness  of  Jesus.  His 
Pantheism  prevented  him  from  recognising  in  Christ  an 
incarnation  of  God  in  the  sense  of  the  creeds,  and  made 
him  willing  to  abandon  much  of  the  miraculous  in  Christ's 
history,  to  treat  as  doubtful  the  miraculous  conception,  and 
to  resolve  the  resurrection  into  a  revival  to  consciousness 
from  a  state  of  suspended  animation.  But  he  was  too  much 
a  Christian  to  be  capable  of  following  Pantheism  as  his 
leader  in  the  ethical  region.  Pantheistic  philosophy  teaches 
that  it  is  not  the  way  of  the  ideal  to  realize  itself  in  an  in- 
dividual, but  only  in  the  species;  therefore  Jesus  as  an 
individual  historical  person  must  have  been  more  or  less 
morally  defective  like  all  other  men.  To  this  doctrine 
Schleiermacher,  with  Moravian  blood  in  his  veins,  and  full 
of  reverence  and  love  towards  the  Redeemer,  at  whatever 
cost  of  inconsistency,  could  only  give  one  answer:  "  Get 
thee  behind  me,  Satan."  Let  us  honour  him  for  his  incon- 
sistency, and  see  in  it  an  involuntary  testimony  to  the 
force  of  truth,  a  witness  to  the  impression  of  an  unearthly 
purity  which  the  image  of  Jesus  makes  on  every  ingenuous 
mind. 

It  is  evident  that  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  Glaubenslehre 
of  Schleiermacher  concerning  the  person  of  Christ  cannot 
pretend  to  be  clear  of  all  mystery.  That  gifted  author  did 
his  best  to  reduce  the  mystery  and  the  miracle  to  a  min- 
imum, that  he  might  commend  his  Christology  to  scientific 
and  philosophic  tastes.  He  taught  that  Christ,  though  the 
ideal  man,  and  therefore  a  product  of  the  creative  energy 
of  God  out  of  the  common  course,  was   nevertheless  but 


Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    209 

the  completion  of  the  creation,  that  to  which  the  rudimen- 
tary man  of  the  first  creation  was  destined  to  reach,  and 
towards  which  the  human  race  in  its  onward  course  had 
been  steadily  approximating.  While  therefore  there  was 
certainly  manifested  in  Christ  a  divine  initiative,  it  was  an 
initiative  which  did  no  violence  to  the  law  of  evolution; 
though  there  was  a  miracle,  it  was  a  small  one.  But  it  is 
vain  to  attempt  by  such  representations  to  conciliate  un- 
belief. A  little  miracle  is  as  objectionable  to  Pantheistic 
naturalism  as  a  great  one;  the  creation  of  a  moneron,  the 
rudest  embodiment  of  the  principle  of  life,  as  much  an 
offence  as  the  creation  of  a  perfect  man.  If,  therefore,  the 
Christology  of  Schleiermacher  has  nothing  more  to  say  for 
itself  than  that  it  is  an  endeavour  to  present  the  faith  of 
the  church  concerning  its  Founder  in  a  form  which,  while 
retaining  something  distinctively  Christian,  shall  be  as  in- 
offensive as  possible  on  the  score  of  mysteriousness,  it  must 
be  pronounced  an  utter  failure.  It  is  useless  for  apologetic 
purposes,  and  must  rest  its  claims  to  acceptance  on  other 
grounds.1 

3.  We  come  now  to  the  views  of  the  third  party  referred 
to  at  the  commencement  of  this  lecture,  whom  I  described 
as  with  the  naturalistic  school  in  philosophy,  but  with  the 
supernaturalists  in  feeling,  and  as  endeavouring  in  their 
whole  delineation  of  Christ's  life  and  character  to  embrace 
in  the  picture  as  much  as  possible  of  the  extraordinary, 
while  recognising  in  no  sphere  the  strictly  miraculous.  This 
party  may  be  designated  the  mediation  school,  or  perhaps 
better  still,  the  school  of  Sentimental  Naturalism;  and  it 
commands  our  respect  by  its  sober,  reverent  manner  of 
handling  the  Gospel  history,  and  by  the  array  of  distin- 
guished writers  of  which  it  can  boast,  including  Ewald, 
Keim,  and  Weizsacker.     In  perusing  the  works  on  the  life 

1  Views  similar  to  those  of  Schleiermacher  have  been  propounded  recently  by 
Dr.  Abbott,  author  of  Through  Nature  up  to  Christ,  and  other  works.  Dr. 
Abbott  is  an  eclectic  in  philosophy,  naturalistic  on  the  physical  side,  supernatur- 
alistic  on  the  ethical.  He  represents  Christ  as  perhaps  as  incapable  of  working 
miracles  such  as  those  recorded  in  the  Gospels  as  of  sinning.  The  naivete  of  this 
is  charming.  Dr.  Abbott  does  not  seem  to  be  aware  that  a  sinless  Christ  is  as 
great  a  miracle  as  a  Christ  who  can  walk  on  the  water.  Vid.  Preface  to  Oxfora 
Sert,  torn 


210  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

of  our  Lord  emanating  from  this  school,  one  is  struck  with 
the  extent  to  which  they  recognise  the  historical  character 
of  the  Gospel,  in  comparison  with  the  two  lives  of  Jesus 
by  Strauss,  as  also  with  the  marked  contrast  in  the  whole 
tone  and  spirit  of  the  performances.  They  recognise  so 
much  as  historically  true,  that  you  feel  they  would  recog- 
nise all,  if  only  their  philosophy  would  allow  them.  The 
person  of  Christ,  if  not  essentially  divine  and  absolutely 
sinless,  is  yet  in  all  respects  unique,  a  veritable  wander; 
if  some  of  the  miracles  be  impossible,  and  therefore  the 
narratives  which  record  them  mythical,  others  were  actual 
occurrences,  especially  the  healing  miracles,  which,  though 
very  extraordinary,  were  yet  not  contrary  to  or  outside 
the  course  of  nature,  being  explicable  on  the  principles  of 
"  Moral  Therapeutics."  Even  the  resurrection  of  Jesus 
was,  in  some  respects,  a  reality.  The  appearances  of  the 
"  risen  "  one  were  not  merely  subjective  visions,  the  hallu- 
cinations of  a  heated  brain;  there  was  an  objective  basis 
for  the  faith  of  the  disciples.  Not  that  the  dead  body  of 
Jesus  came  to  life  again,  that  of  course  was  impossible;  but 
the  spirit  of  Jesus,  which  survived  His  death,  caused  the 
disciples  to  see  these  visions,  sent  these  manifestations 
from  heaven  as  telegrams,  so  to  speak,  to  assure  them  that 
all  was  well,  and  so  revive  their  hopes.  All  this  is,  doubt- 
less, very  gratifying  and  very  reassuring  to  the  believing 
student  of  the  evangelic  narrative,  tending  to  confirm  him 
in  faith,  and  to  make  him  confident  that  he  is  not  following 
cunningly-devised  fables  when  he  accepts  the  whole  as 
simple  truth,  without  even  such  abatements  as  an  Ewald 
or  a  Keim  would  make.  But  while  accepting  thankfully 
the  concessions  of  this  school,  we  must  bear  in  mind  that 
these  are  apt  to  lead  us  to  form  a  more  favourable  judg- 
ment concerning  the  position  it  occupies  in  contrast  to 
that  of  Strauss  and  other  extremely  negative  critics  than 
it  deserves.  It  may  be  that  writers  of  this  school  go  farther 
than  on  their  principles  they  are  entitled  to  go,  and  that 
Strauss,  with  all  his  brutal  irreverent  plainness  of  speech, 
is  the  most  reliable  and  consistent  exponent  of  the  natur- 
alistic philosophy  in  its  bearing  on  religious  problems 
Strauss  himself  has  no  doubt  on  the  point.     In  reviewing, 


Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    2 1 1 

in  the  introduction  to  his  New  Life  of  Jesus,  the  works  on 
the  same  theme  which  had  appeared  after  the  publication 
of  his  earlier  Life,  Strauss  notices  the  views  of  Keim  as  ex- 
pressed in  an  academical  address  on  the  human  develop- 
ment of  Jesus  Christ,  comparing  them  with  those  of  Renan. 
While  admitting  Keim's  superiority  to  Renan  in  some 
respects,  e.  g.  in  his  appreciation  of  the  respective  merits 
of  the  Synoptics  and  of  John,  he  thinks  him  inferior  to  the 
Frenchman  in  this,  that,  while  holding  Jesus  to  be  a  purely 
human  person,  he  is  nevertheless  not  willing  that  He  should 
be  one  of  many,  but  insists  on  His  being  a  unique  individ- 
ual on  whose  mediation  all  humanity  depends.  This  idea 
of  Christ  he  characterizes  as  sentimental,  and  he  expresses 
the  conviction  that  the  error  of  supposing  it  possible  to 
reconcile  the  claim  of  a  full  and  complete  humanity  in 
Jesus  with  that  of  a  unique  being  elevated  above  humanity 
would  much  more  clearly  appear  if  Keim  would  undertake 
to  write  a  detailed  life  of  Jesus.1  What  Strauss  desired, 
Keim  has  done,  and  in  the  Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara  we 
have  the  means  of  judging  how  far  naturalism  can  go  in 
recognising  the  exceptional  in  the  person  and  history  of 
the  Saviour.  Now  my  verdict  is  that  Strauss  was  right 
when  he  affirmed,  that  on  the  principles  of  naturalism  you 
cannot  make  Christ  an  exceptional  unique  person,  but  must 
be  content  to  regard  Him,  as  Renan  has  done,  as  a  very 
remarkable  man,  and  to  recognise  Him  as  the  originator  of 
spiritual  religion,  just  as  you  recognise  Socrates  as  the  origi- 
nator of  philosophy,  and  Aristotle  of  science,  that  is,  on  the 
understanding  that  many  attempts  preceded  these  masters, 
and  that  since  their  time  important  improvements  have  been 
made,  and  may  yet  be  made,  but  still  without  impeaching 
the  eminent  position  generally  conceded  to  these  great 
original  founders.  While  highly  appreciating  much  that  is 
excellent  in  the  work,  and  greatly  valuing  its  positive  and 
reverent  spirit,  I  must  nevertheless  say  that  what  I  find  in 
Keim's  History  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  is  this:  Naturalism  by 
inflated  exaggerated  language  striving  hard  to  do  justice  to 
the  extraordinary  in  its  subject  without  recognising  anything 
supernatural.     It  is  a  case  of  the  frog  trying  to  blow  itself 

1  New  Life  of  Jesus,  i.  45. 


212  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

out  into  the  dimensions  of  the  ox.  The  very  style  of  the 
work  reveals  the  impossibility  of  the  attempted  task;  a 
remark  applicable  to  Ewald  also,  who  belongs  to  the  same 
school  of  sentimental  naturalism.  Always,  when  writers 
of  this  school  come  to  deal  with  a  hard  problem,  such  as 
the  miracles  of  Jesus,  or  His  assertion  of  a  peculiar  relation 
to  God,  or  His  resurrection,  they  lose  themselves  in  long 
involved  sentences  charged  with  mystic  poetic  phraseology, 
from  which  it  is  impossible  to  extract  any  distinct  idea. 
Strauss  remarks,  in  reference  to  Ewald's  treatment  of  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  that  his  long,  inflated  rhetoric  con- 
tains literally  no  fragment  of  an  idea  beyond  what  had  been 
said  by  himself  in  his  first  Leben  much  more  clearly,  "  though 
assuredly  with  far  less  unction."  This  remark  is  perfectly 
just.  I  remember  the  feeling  of  perplexity  created  in  my 
mind  on  reading  Ewald's  remarks  on  the  resurrection  in 
his  work  on  the  history  of  Christ.1  I  supposed  at  the  time 
that  the  obscurity  was  simply  an  idiosyncrasy  of  the  writer, 
or,  it  might  be,  the  effect  of  ignorance  in  the  reader;  till 
by  and  by  it  dawned  upon  me  that  Ewald's  obscurity,  like 
Schleiermacher's,  was  the  result  of  his  attempting  to  serve 
two  masters.  The  drift  of  the  whole  discussion  is:  the 
resurrection  did  not,  could  not,  take  place,  but  the  beauti- 
ful dream  must  be  dealt  with  tenderly,  and  its  reality  denied 
with  as  much  sentiment  as  if  you  meant  to  affirm  it.  The 
same  observation  applies  to  Keim's  manner  of  dealing  with 
similar  topics.  He  is  a  sentimental  anti-supernaturalist, 
who  tries  hard  to  affirm,  while  denying  the  supernatural 
element.  The  charge  of  sentimentalism  he  would  not  in- 
deed resent,  for  he  not  only  admits,  but  claims  as  a  merit, 
a  "  pectoral  "  colouring  in  his  delineation  of  the  great 
biography. 

As  it  is  very  important  to  be  convinced  of  the  illegitimacy 
of  this  attempt  to  reconcile  faith  and  scepticism,  and  to  un- 
derstand that  we  must  either  go  further  than  Keim  or 
Ewald  in  belief,  or  not  so  far,  I  may  briefly  explain  Keim's 
mode  of  dealing  with  the  miraculous  in  Christ's  history  be- 
fore considering  the  view  held  by  him  and  others  of  the 
same  school  concerning  the  person  of  Christ  and  His  po- 

1  The  fifth  volume  of  his  History  of  Israel. 


Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ 's  Person.    2  r  3 

sition  in  the  universe.  As  already  remarked,  Keim,  in 
common  with  all  writers  of  the  same  school,  recognises  to 
a  far  greater  extent  than  Strauss  the  historical  character 
of  even  the  more  remarkable  passages  in  Christ's  life  as  re- 
lated in  the  Gospels.  After  all  necessary  deductions,  he 
admits  that  the  Gospels  make  on  every  sound  mind  the  im- 
pression that  in  their  narratives  they  do  not  rest  simply  on 
late  legends  and  recent  inventions,  and  that  beyond  doubt 
they  contain  many  genuine  historical  facts,  and  possibly 
still  more  most  genuine  words  of  Jesus,  and  that  it  is  not 
credible  that  the  great  deeds  interwoven  with  the  story  are 
fictions.  At  the  same  time,  being  naturalistic  in  his  phil- 
osophic view-point,  he  cannot  afford  to  accept  all  the  Gos- 
pel "  miracles"  as  historical;  he  can  admit  only  those  which, 
however  wonderful,  can  be  conceived  to  have  had  a  natu- 
ral cause.  To  this  class  belong  the  miracles  of  healing, 
Our  author  thinks  that  though  Jesus  came  not  to  do  mighty 
works,  but  to  preach,  yet  He  could  not  avoid  becoming  a 
healer  of  disease.  Events  carried  him  on  into  this  new 
path,  not  to  be  called  "  a  false  path,"  seeing  that  through 
it  Jesus  entered  on  a  truly  divine  career.  The  trust  of  men 
and  their  misery  pressed  around  the  new  teacher  and  de- 
sired His  help,  though  in  Galilee  and  Capernaum  there 
might  be  no  want  of  physicians,  male  and  female.  The 
synoptic  Gospels  indicate  by  their  manner  of  narration  that 
this  was  the  way  the  healing  miracles  began;  they  ascribe 
not  at  the  beginning,  or  even  at  all,  the  initiative  to  Jesus, 
but  to  those  who  came  seeking  help.  The  sick  came  to 
Him,  He  intensely  sympathized  with  them;  the  question 
arose:  Do  this  need  of  the  people,  and  their  appeal  for  help 
on  the  one  hand,  and  my  sympathy  on  the  other,  not  in- 
dicate a  new  department  of  labour,  and  constitute  a  call  to 
add  to  my  work  as  a  spiritual  physician  that  of  one  who 
heals  the  diseases  of  the  body  ?  The  heart  of  Jesus  an- 
swered Yes  to  this  question;  and  so  He  set  Himself  to  heal 
the  sick,  which  He  did  simply  by  a  word,  a  word  of  faith 
acting  on  faith  in  the  recipient  of  benefit.  And,  strange 
to  say,  by  the  two  combined,  the  faith  of  Jesus  revealing 
itself  in  confident  words,  and  the  faith  of  the  sick  exhibited 
in  no  less  confident  expectations,  remarkable  cures  were 


214  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

wrought:  diseases  of  body  and  mind  yielded  to  the  united 
faith-storm  (Glaubensturm)  of  healer  and  healed  !  How 
were  these  cures  brought  about  ?  Keim  discusses  all  the 
various  hypotheses  that  have  been  suggested,  such  as  that 
the  cures  were  strictly  medical,  effected  by  the  professional 
knowledge  of  Jesus,  or  that  they  were  produced  by  magic 
arts  or  by  magnetism,  or  that  they  were  answers  to  prayer. 
Rejecting  all  these  hypotheses,  he  maintains  that  the  cures 
must  be  held  to  spring  in  the  first  place  from  the  spiritual 
life  of  Jesus,  associated  with  His  human  will-force,  and 
with  His  religious  confidence,  and  also  with  that  trait  of 
deep  sympathy,  of  inwardness,  of  devotion,  which  He 
brought  to  the  victims  of  the  world's  woe;  and  in  the  second 
place,  from  the  receptivity  of  the  healed,  for  as  spirit  works 
primarily  on  spirit,  the  co-operation  of  the  patient  is  indis- 
pensable, and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  we  see  that  stress  was 
laid  on  it  by  Jesus.  He  did  mighty  works  only  where  there 
was  faith.  Regarded  by  the  simple  folks  of  Galilee  as 
the  great  man,  as  the  prophet,  as  the  deliverer,  He  by  His 
love  awakened  love,  by  His  faith  called  forth  faith  sufficient 
to  alter  the  physical  life  course. 

Marvellous  results  of  the  Glaubensturm  and  the  moral 
therapeutics  so  eloquently  described.  Pity  only  that  the 
Glaubensturm  could  not  be  more  frequently  raised,  and 
that  moral  therapeutics,  which  Matthew  Arnold  assures  us 
have  not  been  sufficiently  studied,1  were  not  more  generally 
understood  !  Speaking  seriously,  what  are  we  to  think  of 
this  new  theory  of  moral  therapeutics,  by  which  men  like 
Keim  seek  to  reconcile  their  acceptance  of  the  healing 
"  miracles  "  with  their  philosophic  naturalism  ?  It  looks 
very  like  a  device  to  hide  from  themselves  their  true  po- 
sition, which  is  that  of  men  drawn  in  two  different  direc- 
tions, towards  faith  by  the  general  impression  of  historical 
truth  made  on  their  minds  by  the  Gospel  narratives, 
towards  unbelief  by  their  philosophy.  Moral  therapeutics 
is  a  convenient  phrase  for  a  dark  mysterious  region  into 
which  those  can  take  refuge  who  halt  between  two  opin- 
ions. If  it  be  true,  as  Matthew  Arnold  says,  that  moral 
therapeutics  have  not  been  sufficiently  studied,  it  is  per- 

1  In  Literature  and  Dogma. 


Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    2  1 5 

haps  well  for  him  and  the  like  of  him;  for  it  is  the  darkness 
of  the  subject  that  makes  it  serve  their  turn.  If  ever  moral 
therapeutics  should  be  thoroughly  studied,  and  the  con- 
clusion come  to  that  there  is  not  much  in  them,  then  men 
like  Keim  and  Arnold  will  be  forced  to  do  violence  to  their 
historical  sense,  and  to  treat  all  the  miraculous  narratives 
together  as  alike  legendary.  Meantime  they  can  talk  in 
high-flown  sentimental  style  about  the  Glaiibensturm  and 
the  marvels  it  can  work,  without  risk  of  immediate  scien- 
tific contradiction  not  to  be  gainsaid. 

It  is  easy  to  show  that  Keim's  manner  of  dealing  with 
the  resurrection  of  Jesus  is  equally  unsatisfactory.  His  view 
amounts  to  this:  The  resurrection  did  not  happen,  yet 
something  happened,  something  corresponding  to  the  phe- 
nomena of  modern  spiritualism,  that  something  was  not  3l 
miracle  in  the  strict  sense,  but  it  was  a  "  wunder;"  "  a  wun- 
der,"  says  Weizsacker,  whose  opinion  on  this  topic  is  sub- 
stantially the  same  as  Keim's,  "  as  truly  as  was  the  whole- 
history  or  the  person  of  Jesus."1  It  is  not  surprising  that 
Strauss  in  his  new  Leben  Jesu  expressed  himself  as  curious 
to  see  what  Keim  would  make  of  the  resurrection.  "  Having 
renounced,"  he  remarks,  "the  visions  spoken  of  by  Renan, 
and  generally  excluded  the  supernatural  from  his  treat- 
ment of  the  subject,  there  seems  no  other  hypothesis  open 
to  him  but  that  of  suspended  animation.  If  so,  he  comes 
at  last  to  the  signal  fiasco  of  falling  into  the  wake  of  Schlei- 
ermacher,  whose  views  it  was  his  ambition  to  surpass  in 
point  of  historical  accuracy."  Keim  has  not  fallen  into 
that  fiasco  certainly,  but  he  has  come  to  a  conclusion  which 
is  neither  one  thing  nor  another,  and  which  Strauss  ap- 
parently, with  all  his  mental  resources,  was  unable  even  to 
imagine.  The  old  theft  hypothesis  adopted  by  Reimarus 
and  kindred  spirits  he  knew;  the  swoon  hypothesis,  ac- 
cording to  which  Jesus  did  not  die  on  the  cross,  held  by 
Schleiermacher  and  others,  he  was  also  acquainted  with; 
the  hypothesis  of  subjective  visions,  creatures  of  a  heated 
brain,  he  himself  strenuously  advocated;2  but  as  for  this 

1    Untersuckungen  iiber  die  Evangelische  Geschichte,  p.  573. 
8  Dr.  Abbott  in  Philochristus  seems  to  adopt  this  hypothesis.     He  speaks  of  the 
visions  as  continuing  for  little  less  than  a  year,  "insomuch  that  if  any  one  should 


216  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

new  spiritualistic  hypothesis  of  Keim's,  which  resolves  the 
appearances  of  the  risen  Christ  into  objective  though  im- 
material manifestations,  telegraphic  messages  from  the  de- 
parted Master  to  His  disciples,  he  neither  had  seen  it  in 
books,  nor  had  it  entered  into  his  mind  to  conceive  it. 

Let  me  now  illustrate  the  peculiar  characteristics  of  this 
school  of  theologians  by  the  manner  in  which  they  con- 
ceive and  represent  the  person  of  Christ.  As  I  remarked 
on  a  former  page,  Keim  does  not  recognise  the  sinlessness 
of  Jesus;  and  a  similar  remark  applies  to  Weizsacker,  who 
speaks  of  Christ's  "sinlessness"  as  consisting  in  single- 
hearted  devotion,  and  of  His  perfection  as  similar  to  that 
of  Paul  or  any  other  devoted  man.  Nevertheless,  while  re- 
fusing to  acknowlege  the  doctrine  of  the  Churck  on  this 
point,  theologians  of  this  school  assign  to  Christ  a  unique 
place  in  His  relation  to  God  and  the  world.  The  views  of 
Keim  on  this  topic  are  specially  emphatic.  Nowhere  are 
they  expressed  in  a  more  characteristic  manner  than  in  the 
author's  discussion  of  the  remarkable  text  in  Matt.  xi.  27; 
which  he  calls  Christ's  great  confession  of  sonship.  After 
discussing  the  various  readings  of  the  text,  and  expressing 
his  preference  for  the  ancient1  as  against  the  canonical 
reading,  he  goes  on  to  say: — 

"  Whichever  form  of  the  text  we  adopt  we  find  therein  the  glory  of  Christ,  and 
a  great  testimony  and  personal  testimony  in  reference  to  His  whole  position.  All 
is  given  to  Him  by  His  Father,  that  is,  the  God  whom  He  here  for  the  first  time 
distinctly  calls  His  Father,  in  contrast  to  all  other  men.  The  all  things  given  aie 
primarily  those  babes,  the  kernel  of  the  people,  to  whom  the  Father  has  shown  the 

adventure  to  set  forth  all  the  manifestations  of  Jesus,  and  the  time  and  place  and 
manner  of  each,  I  suppose  that  the  world  itself  could  not  contain  the  books  that 
should  be  written,"  pp.  413,  414.  Such  long  continuance  Keim  holds  to  be  neces- 
sary to  the  vision  hypothesis,  and  the  fact  that  there  is  no  evidence  of  anything  of 
the  kind,  he  holds  to  be  conclusive  against  it.  Having  referred  to  Pkilochristus , 
I  may  remark  that  it  may  fairly  be  classed  with  the  literature  of  sentimental  Natur- 
.alism.  In  this  interesting  book  the  story  of  Christ  is  told  in  the  name  of  one  of 
His  disciples,  and  a  strange  and  incongruous  combination  of  first  century  faith 
•.and  reverence  with  nineteenth  century  scepticism  is  the  result. 

1  "No  man  knew  the  Father  save  the  Son,  nor  the  Son  save  the  Father,"  the 
•clauses  in  our  canonical  Gospel  being  inverted  and  the  tense  changed.  The  Gnos- 
tics preferred  this  form  because  it  supported  their  doctrine  that  the  God  of  the  Old 
Testament  was  not  the  God  of  the  New,  as  it  made  Christ  claim  to  be  the  first 
teacher  of  the  Fatherhood  of  God. 


Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    2 1 7 

Son;  but  likewise  all  Messianic  rights  among  men,  which  the  faith  of  the  people 
legitimizes,  and  the  unbelief  of  the  wise  avails  not  to  frustrate.  But  what  pre- 
cisely are  those  mysterious  intangible  Messianic  rights  ?  He  tells  us  plainly  in  the 
sequel.  No  one  knew  the  Father  except  the  Son,  and  the  Son  except  the  Father, 
and  he  to  whom  He  reveals.  His  rights,  His  privilege,  His  singularity  lies,  above 
all,  in  the  through  Him  for  the  first  time  completed  knowledge  of  the  Father,  and 
in  His  becoming  known  to  the  humanity  whom  the  Father  gives  Him,  whilst  He 
gives  it  the  knowledge  of  the  Son.  It  is,  in  short,  the  representation  of  the  highest 
spiritual  truths,  as  the  exclusive  mediator  of  which  He,  at  once  revealer  and  re- 
vealed, is  appointed  for  a  believing  obedient  world  of  men.  In  this  great  thesis 
lie  three  mighty  utterances.  He  is  the  first  and  only  one  who  through  Him  and 
through  God  has  reached  the  knowledge  of  God  the  Father.  In  the  second  place, 
as  He  knows  God,  so  God  has  known  Him.  He  has  known  God  as  Father,  as 
Father  of  men,  and  yet  more  as  His  own  Father.  God  has  known  Him  as  Son, 
as  Son  among  many,  and  yet  more  as  the  One  among  many,  and  exclusively  re- 
lated to  each  other.  Each  to  the  other  a  holy,  worthy  to  be  known,  searched, 
discovered  secret,  they  (Father  and  Son)  incline  towards  each  other  with  love,  to 
discover  each  other,  to  enjoy  each  other,  with  self-satisfying  delight,  resting  on 
equality  of  spiritual  activity,  of  being,  of  nature.  It  the  third  place,  this  self- 
contained  world  of  Father  and  Son  opens  itself  to  the  lower  world,  to  men,  only 
by  a  free  act,  because  they  are  pleased  to  open  themselves  up  and  to  admit  whom 
they  choose  to  fellowship,  and  because  the  Father  is  still  greater  than  the  Son, 
even  when  the  Son  upon  earth  speaks  to  the  ears  of  men ;  so  it  is  finally  not  the 
Son  but  the  Father  who  is  the  decisive  revealer,  interpreting  to  the  spirits  and 
hearts  of  men  the  Son,  and  in  the  Son  Himself  admitting  the  babes,  excluding  the 
wise  and  understanding." 

More  briefly  he  says  again: — 

"  This  place  is,  as  no  other,  the  interpreter  of  the  Messiah-thought  of  Jesus.  It 
we  desire  to  reduce  it  to  its  simplest  expression,  it  may  be  said  that  Jesus  sought 
His  Messiahship  in  His  world  historical  spiritual  achievement,  that  He  mediated 
for  humanity  the  highest  knowledge  of  God,  and  the  most  complete  blessed  life 
in  God."  1 

The  bare  reading  of  this  passage  suffices  to  convince  one 
that  the  writer  is  wading  beyond  his  depth.  How  per- 
plexing the  second  of  the  three  thoughts  he  finds  in  the 
text,  on  the  assumption  that  the  speaker  is  no  more  than 
man,  and  is  distinguished  from  other  men  only  by  His  more 
intimate  knowledge  of  and  fellowship  with  God,  a  knowledge 
and  fellowship  even  in  His  case  not  absolutely  perfect  ! 
The  fellowship  of  Father  and  Son  rests,  we  are  told,  on 
equality  of  spiritual  activity,  of  being,  of  nature,  and  yet  all 
that  Christ  here  claims  has  for  its  fact-basis,  according  to 
our  author,  only  this,  that  He  was  the  Inbringer  of  a  higher, 

1    Geschichte  Jesu  von  Nazara,  ii.  384. 


218  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

more  satisfying  religion,  the  religion  of  Christians,  the 
worship  of  the  Father  in  spirit  and  in  truth.  If  this  were 
true,  it  would  be  better,  with  Strauss,  to  deny  the  gen- 
uineness of  the  saying  reported  by  the  evangelist  in  the 
text  cited,  on  the  ground  of  its  mystic,  pretentious, 
superhuman  character,  than,  with  Keim,  to  retain  it  as  the 
unnatural  extravagant  utterance  of  one  who  was  neither 
more  nor  less  than  the  first  teacher  of  a  new  and  compar- 
atively excellent  religion.  The  words  are  natural  and 
sober  only  in  the  mouth  of  one  who  is  something  more  and 
higher  than  this;  even  one  who  occupies  the  position  to- 
wards God,  and  performs  the  functions  towards  the  world 
of  the  Johannine  Logos,  who  was  with  God  before  He  be- 
came man,  and  who  is  the  light  of  every  man  that  Com- 
eth into  the  world.  The  saying  takes  us  out  of  the  histor- 
ical incarnate  life  of  the  speaker  into  the  sphere  of  the 
eternal  and  divine.  The  claim  to  be  the  exclusive  revealer 
of  God  the  Father  of  itself  justifies  this  assertion.  For  it 
does  not  mean  that  men  who  through  want  of  opportunity 
know  not  Him,  the  historical  Christ,  must  on  that  account 
be  without  such  knowledge  of  God  as  is  necessary  unto 
salvation.  It  means  that  He  is  the  light  of  every  man 
in  any  land  or  in  any  age  who  has  light,  and  that 
through  Him  every  one  is  saved  that  is  saved  in  any  place 
or  time;  and  that  is  a  claim  which  could  rationally  be  ad- 
vanced only  by  one  concerning  whom  the  affirmations  con- 
tained in  the  opening  sentence  of  John's  Gospel  could  be 
made:  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the  Word  was 
with  God,  and  the  Word  was  God." 

4.  I  might  here  conclude  this  survey  of  the  literature  of 
naturalistic  Christology,  but  as  I  have  undertaken  to  give 
some  account  of  current  opinions  respecting  the  Author  of 
our  holy  faith,  I  could  not  well  avoid  saying  something  on  a 
phase  of  thought  which  can  scarcely  be  said  to  have  any 
philosophic  basis,  and  of  which  the  chief  interest  is  its 
crudity,  which  is  neither  orthodox  nor  heterodox,  simply 
because  it  stops  short  of  the  point  at  which  orthodoxy  and 
heterodoxy  diverge.  Probably  the  best  representative  of 
this  nondescript  school  in  England  is  the  Rev.  H.  R.  Haweis, 
one  of  the  pulpit  celebrities  of  London  in  connection  with 


Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    2 1 9 

the  Established  Church,  and  author  of  several  well-known 
books  in  which  opinions  on  all  manner  of  present-day  topics 
are  very  freely  expressed ;  whose  popularity  as  a  preacher  and 
as  a  writer  may  be  accepted  as  an  indication  that  his  way 
of  thinking  hits  the  taste  of  many.  Mr.  Haweis  is  emphat- 
ically a  child  of  the  Zeitgeist,  and  yields  himself  with  un- 
hesitating submission  to  the  inspiration  of  the  spirit  of  the 
age.  He  does  not  believe  in  miracles  in  the  sense  of  events 
which  have  no  natural  causes.  "  As  far  as  I  can  see,"  he 
says,  "there  are  no  divine  fiats  in  the  sense  of  things  hap- 
pening without  adequate  causes.  From  a  close  observation 
of  the  world  about  us,  one  and  another  event  supposed  to 
be  by  divine  fiat  is  now  seen  to  be  due  to  natural  causes."1 
This,  however,  does  not  prevent  him  from  accepting  most 
of  the  miracles  recorded  in  the  Bible — miracles  of  all  sorts, 
miracles  of  healing,  miracles  of  prophetic  foresight,  miracu- 
lous answers  to  prayer;  because  he  thinks  that  for  all  such 
miracles  a  natural  cause  can  be  assigned.  He  finds  the  key 
that  unlocks  all  mysteries  in  animal  magnetism.  Priests 
and  prophets  were  men  endowed  with  magnetic  and  spirit- 
ual gifts;  hence  their  power  to  do  things  which  seem  miracu- 
lous, to  see  the  future,  to  pass  through  fire  unharmed,  like 
Shadrach,  Meshach,  and  Abednego;  to  tame  wild  beasts, 
like  Daniel  in  the  lions'  den.  In  Christ  and  His  apostles 
the  magnetic  and  spiritual  forces  culminated.  "  God,  who 
chose  to  speak  to  man  through  the  man  Christ  Jesus,  who 
thus  revealed  the  divine  nature  under  the  limitation  of 
humanity,  also  chose  that  Jesus  Christ  should  take  in  the 
highest  degree  all  the  natural  powers  which  were  bestowed 
on  humanity,  both  as  regards  magnetic  force  and  spiritual 
receptiveness."  2  Hence  the  healing  miracles;  hence  also 
the  frequent  modus  operandi  by  the  use  of  magnetised  sub- 
stances, "as  when  he  made  clay  and  anointed  the  blind  man's 
eyes,  and  sighed  or  breathed  hard  upon  him,  another  prac- 
tice well  known  to  magnetic  doctors  now."  Magnetism  also 
explains  answers  to  prayer,  whether  recorded  in  the  Bible  or 
occurring  in  Christian  experience  now;  for  the  magnetic  ele- 
ment is  the  one  thing  common  to  those  in  the  flesh  and  out 
of  the  flesh.  And  by  prayer  we  put  ourselves  en  rapport  with 
1  Speech  in  Season,  p.  243.  2  Ibid.  p.  49. 


220  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

disembodied  magnetisers,  and  receive  through  their  mag- 
netic influence  the  desired  blessing,  e.g.,  restored  health. 
No  one  will  be  surprised  to  find  one  who  propounds  so  gro- 
tesque a  theory  of  the  miraculous  giving  utterance  to  some- 
what eccentric  ideas  on  such  subjects  as  the  Trinity  and 
the  divinity  of  Christ.  Mr.  Haweis'  opinions  on  these  topics 
are  certainly  eccentric  enough.  In  his  way  he  is  a  believei 
in  a  trinity,  nay,  he  holds  that  every  man  who  thinks  per- 
sistently about  God  must  think  of  Him  as  trinity  in  unity.  Foi 
what,  he  asks,  is  our  first  idea  of  God  ?  It  is  that  of  a  vast, 
co-ordinating,  perhaps  impersonal  force,  which  brought  into 
form  what  we  call  the  universe.  This  is  our  first  rough  no- 
tion of  God — God  in  the  widest  sense,  the  Father.  But 
this  notion  does  not  suffice;  it  leaves  God  too  far  off,  and 
we  need  a  God  that  is  nigh.  And  so  we  next  think  of  God 
as  like  ourselves,  a  magnified  man.  To  us  intellectually, 
sympathetically,  God  is  perfect  man.  This  second  hu- 
man aspect  of  God  is  so  necessary  to  us,  that  even  if  we 
had  no  historical  Christ  at  all,  "  we  should  be  obliged  to 
make  a  Christ,  because  our  mind  incarnates  God  in  the 
form  of  Christ  irresistibly  and  inevitably  whenever  we  bring 
definite  thought  to  bear  upon  the  question  of  a  divine  being 
in  relation  to  man.  And  such  a  Christ,  whether  ideal  or 
historical,  will  be  God  the  Son."  But  my  Christ,  where  is 
He  ?  Is  He  only  an  idea  or  a  past  historical  character  ? 
That  will  not  suffice.  I  must  have  a  present  God  with 
whom  I  can  commune,  by  whose  influence  I  can  be  refreshed, 
a  God  who  touches  me  and  dwells  within  me.  God  so 
conceived  is  the  Holy  Ghost.  And  thus  we  have  our  trinity 
complete,  the  first  of  the  three  modes  of  Deity  being  God 
conceived  of  as  creative  force;  the  second,  God  conceived 
of  as  a  man;  the  third,  God  conceived  of  as  immanent — "  God 
tangential."  It  is  only  a  Sabellian  trinity  of  course,  as  Mr 
Haweis  himself  acknowledges,  and  he  has  no  objection  to 
avoid  the  charge  by  identifying  Manifestation  with  Persona- 
lity, only  he  thinks  the  Church  of  the  future  is  not  likely  to 
quibble  over  phrases  with  a  view  of  evading  the  heresy  of 
Sabellianism.  From  the  foregoing  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  we 
can  ourselves  determine  what  must  be  our  author's  doctrine 
concerning  Christ.     Christ  is  the  second  conception  of  God 


Modem  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    221 

realized  as  a  historical  fact,  an  expression  of  God  under 
the  limitations  of  humanity.  But  it  will  be  best  to  give 
his  view  in  his  own  words:  "When  I  am  asked  to  define 
what  I  mean  by  Christ,  I  use  such  expressions  as  these. 
There  was  something  in  the  nature  of  the  great  boundless 
source  of  being  called  God  which  was  capable  of  sympathy 
with  man.  That  something  found  outward  expression,  and 
became  God  expressed  under  the  essential  limitations  of 
humanity,  in  Jesus.  That  such  a  revelation  was  specially 
necessary  to  the  moral  and  spiritual  development  of  the 
human  race  I  believe;  that  such  revelation  of  God  was  act- 
ually made  to  the  world  I  believe.  More  than  this  I  cannot 
pledge  myself  to." 1 

According  to  this  view,  Christ  is  the  incarnation  not  of 
God,  but  of  something  in  the  nature  of  God  which  has 
affinity  to  man.  God  Himself,  in  the  totality  of  His  being, 
according  to  our  author,  cannot  be  incarnated.  "  There 
must,"  he  says,  "  be  infinite  ranges  in  the  Divine  Being's  rela- 
tions to  our  world,  aspects,  and  energies  of  Him  that  can 
never  be  comprehended  under  the  limitations  of  humanity. 
But  there  is  in  Him  a  human  aspect,  like  the  bright  side  of 
a  planet;  that  side  is  turned  towards  man,  expressed  out- 
wardly to  man  in  man,  and  fully  expressed  in  the  man 
Jesus  Christ."2  I  am  at  a  loss  how  to  classify  this  Christo- 
logical  speculation.  In  some  respects  it  reminds  one  of  the 
kenotic  theories  of  the  Incarnation,  according  to  which  the 
Son  of  God  in  becoming  man  denuded  Himself  of  the  attri- 
butes of  omnipotence,  omniscience,  and  omnipresence,  in 
order  that  He  might  be  capable  of  living  the  life  of  a  verit- 
ableman  within  the  limits  of  humanity.  Butinotherrespects 
it  has  no  affinity  with  the  views  of  kenotic  Christologists, 
or  indeed  with  any  views  that  can  be  characterized  as  Chris- 
tian. The  incarnation  taught  by  Mr.  Haweis  has  more  resem- 
blance to  that  believed  in  by  the  worshippers  of  Brahma, 
than  to  that  embodied  in  the  creeds  of  the  Christian  Church. 
Christ  is  simply  an  emanation  from  the  one  universal  sub- 
stance in  which  are  elements  of  all  sorts,  the  raw  material 
out  of  which  are  manufactured  all  the  individual  beings  which 

1    Thoughts  for  the  Times,  p.  82. 
1  Current  Coin,  p.  310. 


222  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

together  constitute  the  universe.  He  is  the  embodiment  of 
the  human  element  in  the  eternal  Substance,  as  the  stars 
are  the  embodiment  of  some  other  element.  We  should 
rather  say  He  is  an  embodiment,  for  why  Christ  should  be 
singled  out  as  the  solitary  expression  of  the  something  in 
God  that  had  affinity  with  men  does  not  appear.  All  indi- 
vidual men,  according  to  the  Pantheistic  theory  of  the 
universe,  are  incarnations  of  the  human  element  in  God, 
and  all  that  can  be  affirmed  of  Christ  is  what  Spinoza  said 
of  Him,  viz.,  that  He  is,  so  far  as  known,  the  wisest  and 
best  of  men.  That  is  what  Mr.  Haweis  would  have  said 
had  he  occupied  any  deliberately-chosen  consistent  philoso- 
phical standpoint;  but  being  merely  an  eclectic  and  a  child 
of  the  Zeitgeist,  under  its  English  form,  he  utters  opinions 
on  the  subject  of  Christ's  person  which  defy  classification. 

That  such  crude,  undigested,  and  mondescript  views 
should  permanently  satisfy  many  earnest  minds  is  not  to  be 
expected.  The  only  use  they  can  serve  is  to  be  a  tempor- 
ary halting-place  to  those  who,  utterly  out  of  sympathy 
with  the  formulated  doctrines  of  the  Creed,  are  yet  unable 
to  break  away  from  Christianity  and  its  Author.  In  this 
respect  they  are  full  of  interest.  It  is  certainly  a  striking 
phenomenon  which  is  presented  to  our  view  in  this  nine- 
teenth century  in  the  person  of  such  a  man  as  Mr.  Haweis, 
a  man  regarding  creeds  and  dogmatic  systems  with  morbid 
disgust,  and  yet  compelled  by  the  evangelic  records  to  rec- 
ognise in  Jesus  the  Son  of  God  in  a  sense  in  which  the  title 
can  be  applied  to  no  other  man.  To  some  the  phenomenon 
may  appear  a  thing  of  evil  omen,  portending  the  disinte- 
gration of  the  Christian  faith,  and  the  ultimate  dissolution 
of  the  Christian  Church.  But  it  has  a  bright,  hopeful  side, 
as  well  as  a  dark,  discouraging  one.  It  is  Christianity  re- 
newing its  youth,  making  a  new  beginning.  It  is  Christ, 
the  same  yesterday,  to-day,  and  for  ever,  presenting  Him- 
self to  men  whose  minds  have  become  theologically  a 
tabula  rasa,  and  making  on  them,  through  His  words  of 
wisdom  and  deeds  of  holy  love,  an  impression  very  similar 
to  that  which  He  made  on  the  minds  of  His  first  disciples, 
and  to  which  the  most  appropriate  expression  was  given  in 
the  confession  of  Peter,  "  Thou  art  the  Christ,  the  Son  of  the 


Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    223 

living  God."  It  is  very  much  to  be  desired  that  an  impres- 
sion of  this  kind  should  be  made  at  first  hand  on  many 
minds  in  our  day;  for  better  far  is  even  a  crude  elementary 
faith,  right  so  far  as  it  goes,  which  has  been  communicated 
direct  to  the  soul  by  the  Father  in  heaven,  than  a  more  de- 
veloped orthodox  creed  held  as  a  tradition  received  from 
flesh  and  blood.  Such  a  faith  is  vital,  and,  like  all  things 
living,  it  will  grow,  and  as  the  result  of  growth  it  may  ul- 
timately receive  as  truth  dogmas  from  which  at  first  it 
recoiled  in  incredulity,  and  so  attain  to  the  only  orthodoxy 
which  is  of  any  value,  that  which  is  right  in  the  spirit  as 
well  as  in  the  letter,  an  orthodoxy  of  moral  conviction,  not 
of  mechanical  imitation. 

5.  It  remains  now  to  consider  the  views  of  those  who, 
while  advocating  a  theory  of  Christ's  person  similar  to  that 
of  Schleiermacher,  according  to  which  Christ  is  the  ideal, 
perfect  man — and  nothing  more — do  so,  not  on  philosophic 
grounds,  but  solely  because  they  believe  they  can  prove 
that  such  is  the  view  presented  in  Scripture.  Substantially 
the  theory  held  by  this  school  is  the  same  as  that  of  the 
old  Socinians,  the  main  difference  being,  that  while  the 
Socinians  emphasized  the  distinction  between  God  and 
man,  the  modern  advocates  of  the  Ideal  Man  theory  empha- 
size the  essential  identity  of  the  divine  and  the  human, 
and  hence  feel  able  to  appropriate  phrases  and  to  adopt 
modes  of  expression  from  which  the  old  Socinians  would 
have  shrunk.  Thus  Rothe  speaks  of  God  as  incarnate  in 
Christ;  quarrelling  with  orthodoxy  only  because  it  believes 
in  an  Incarnation  limited  to  Christ,  instead  of  teaching,  as 
he  does,  that  God  is  incarnate  in  redeemed  humanity  at 
large,  and  that  in  the  Incarnation  of  Christ  we  have  only 
the  beginning  of  a  process.1 

The  place  of  representative  man  in  connection  with  this 
theory  may  justly  be  assigned  to  Beyschlag,  who,  in  his 
work  on  the  Christology  of  the  New  Testament,2  has  made 
a  most  elaborate  and  ingenious  attempt  to  show  that  it  is 
in  accordance  with  the  teaching  both  of  our  Lord  and  of 
the  apostles.     Beyschlag's  thesis  is  that  Jesus  Christ  was 

1  Dogmatik,  ZweiterTheil,  erste  Abtheilung,  p.  153. 

2  Die  Christologie  des  Neuen  Testaments,  Berlin  1866. 


224  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

the  divine  idea  of  humanity  for  the  first  time  realized  in 
history,  the  perfect  man,  and  just  because  the  perfect  man 
the  Son  of  God,  the  natures  of  God  and  of  man  being  essen- 
tially identical.  This  he  holds  to  be  the  doctrine  taught 
not  only  in  the  synoptical  Gospels,  but  even  in  the  fourth 
Gospel,  here  joining  issue  with  the  great  founder  of  the 
Tubingen  school  of  criticism,  Dr.  Baur.  As  is  well  known 
to  those  familiar  with  his  writings,  Baur  discovers  in  the 
New  Testament  three  distinct  types  of  Christology,  the  first 
and  lowest  being  that  of  the  synoptical  Gospels,  the  second 
and  intermediate  the  Pauline,  and  the  third  and  highest 
that  of  the  fourth  Gospel.  The  first  is  Ebionitic  in  its  char- 
acter, the  Christ  of  the  first  three  Gospels  being  a  mere  man 
endowed  by  the  Holy  Ghost  with  gifts  and  graces  fitting  for 
His  Messianic  office.  In  the  second,  Pauline  type  of  Chris- 
tology, Christ  is  still  only  a  man,  but  He  is  a  man  deified — 
a  man  placed  in  a  central  position  towards  the  universe 
corresponding  to  the  universalistic  views  of  Christianity 
advocated  by  the  apostle  of  the  Gentiles,  the  first-born  of 
every  creature,  the  head  and  lord  of  creation,  worthy  to 
receive  divine  honour  and  worship  of  all.  In  the  third  type 
of  Christology — that  set  forth  in  the  fourth  Gospel — Christ 
ceases  to  be  veritable  man,  and  becomes  a  God  who  has 
assumed  a  human  body  that  He  may  become  manifest  to 
the  world.  Beyschlag,  on  the  other  hand,  contends  that 
the  Christology  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  essentially  the  same 
as  that  of  the  first  three,  the  proof  offered  of  this  proposition 
forming  part  of  an  attempt  to  establish  the  Johannine 
authorship  of  that  Gospel.  Beyschlag  says  in  effect,  there 
is  no  need  to  stand  in  doubt  as  to  Johannine  authorship  so 
far  as  the  Christology  of  the  fourth  Gospel  is  concerned. 
For  the  Christology  of  that  Gospel  is  just  the  Christology 
of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke.  In  all  four  Gospels  one  and 
the  same  Christ  is  found — a  Christ  who,  when  He  calls 
Himself  the  Son  of  Man,  means  to  assert  that  He  is  the  man 
par  excellence,  the  ideal  man  in  whom  all  humanity's  pos- 
sibilities are  realized,  and  who,  when  He  calls  Himself  the 
Son  of  God,  means  to  assert  no  metaphysical  identity  of 
nature,  but  only  to  claim  for  Himself  a  sonship  based  on 
ethical  affinity,  and  manifesting  itself  by  intimate  fellow- 


Modem  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    225 

ship  of  spirit,  and  therefore  a  sonship  which,  while  in  degree 
peculiar  to  Himself,  is  in  kind  common  to  Him  with  all 
good  men.  That  Christ  in  the  fourth  Gospel  much  more 
frequently  calls  Himself  by  the  latter  name  than  in  the 
other  three,  is  simply  due  to  the  fact  of  his  being  placed  in 
circumstances  which  make  that  natural  in  the  Johannine 
representation.  But  what  of  Xhc  pre-existence?  Is  that  not 
a  peculiar  feature  in  the  Johannine  Christology  ?  Yes, 
Beyschlag  replies,  there  is  very  notably  a  doctrine  of  pre- 
existence  taught  in  the  Gospel  of  John.  But  then  the  pre- 
existence  is  not  such  as  the  creeds  of  the  Church  mistakenly 
represented  it.  It  is  the  pre-existence  not  of  a  real  person, 
member  of  an  eternally-existing  essential  trinity,  but  of  a 
divine  idea,  an  idea  which  is  at  once  the  Ebenbild  of  God 
— a  mirror  in  which  God  sees  His  own  image  reflected — 
and  the  Urbild  of  man,  the  archetypal  thought  according 
to  which  God  made  man,  destined  in  the  course  of  the  ages 
to  be  realized  as  it  never  had  been  before,  in  all  its  plero- 
matic  fulness,  in  Jesus  Christ.  And  when  Christ  asserts 
His  pre-existence,  it  is  not  as  a  recollection  of  a  previous 
conscious  life  in  the  bosom  of  God,  but  simply  as  an  infer- 
ence from  His  own  consciousness  of  unity  in  spirit  with 
God.  In  proportion  as  it  becomes  clear  to  Him  that  He  is 
;n  perfect  harmony  with  God,  and  therefore  realizes  the 
ideal  of  a  humanity  made  in  God's  image,  it  also  becomes 
clear  to  Him  that  He  must  have  pre-existed  as  an  idea  in 
the  divine  mind,  and  in  the  language  of  poetry  or  imagin- 
ation may  be  said  to  have  been  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father, 
holding  delightful  converse  with  Him  throughout  the  ages 
before  He  was  born  into  the  world. 

I  cannot  here  attempt  a  detailed  examination  of  the 
proof  offered  by  Beyschlag  in  support  of  these  views,  but 
must  content  myself  with  presenting  a  few  samples  of  his 
exegesis,  which  may  enable  readers  to  form  a  clearer  idea 
of  the  Christological  scheme  and  to  estimate  its  merits, 
while  they  will  give  me  an  opportunity  of  saying  a  few 
words  on  the  important  and  interesting  subject  of  Christ's 
self-witness,  or  the  doctrine  which  He  taught  concerning 
His  own  pers-on. 

A  prominent    place   in   all    Christological   discussion   is 


226  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

due  to  the  question,  What  is  the  precise  import  of  the 
name  which  our  Lord  ordinarily  and  by  preference  em- 
ployed to  designate  Himself,  the  Son  of  Man  ?  On  this 
question  much  diversity  of  opinion  has  prevailed,  some  re- 
garding the  name  as  a  title  of  dignity,  others  as  expressive 
of  indignity,  while  a  third  class  of  interpreters  think  that, 
as  used  by  Christ,  it  combines  both  the  senses.  Beyschlag 
is  very  decidedly  of  opinion  that  it  is  a  title  of  dignity — is, 
in  fact,  a  synonym  for  Messiah.  He  thinks  the  source  of 
this  name  for  Messiah  is  the  text  in  Daniel  concerning  one 
like  unto  the  Son  of  Man;  herein  differing  from  Schleier- 
macher,  who  regarded  this  opinion  as  a  baseless  fancy;  and 
he  finds  no  difficulty  in  determining  from  the  prophetic  text 
the  precise  import  of  the  title.  "  His  appearance  in  heaven 
seems  to  point  at  a  not  human,  but  a  divine  essence,  while 
yet  the  name  Son  of  Man  presupposes  not  a  divine,  but  a 
human  essence."  The  solution  of  the  difficulty  thus  pre- 
sented is  found  in  the  consideration  that  in  the  idea  of  the 
Son  of  Man  the  human  is  not  thought  of  in  opposition  to 
the  divine,  but  as  in  affinity  with  it,  so  that  the  Messiah  of 
Daniel  is  the  heavenly  man.  He  is  man,  not  God;  for  He 
is  conceived  of  as  distinct  from  and  dependent  on  God,  but 
He  is  higher  than  any  prophet;  He  is  in  heaven  before  He 
comes  to  earth  to  assume  His  kingdom,  at  home,  so  to 
speak,  among  the  clouds  of  heaven,  a  companion  of  God, 
of  celestial  descent  and  heavenly  essence.  Hence  it  fol- 
lows that  He  pre-existed  before  His  appearance  on  the 
earth;  but  whether  the  pre-existence  be  real  or  ideal  only, 
a  pre-existence  in  the  council  and  will  of  God  cannot  be 
decided  from  the  passage:  the  question  was  not  present  to 
the  mind  of  the  prophet.  Combining  this  result  with  the 
Bible  doctrine  of  the  creation  of  man  in  God's  image,  the 
writer  finally  arrives  at  this  formula:  the  in-heaven-pre- 
existing Son  of  Man  was  the  archetype  of  humanity,  the 
image  of  God,  of  whom  mention  is  made  in  the  creation- 
history.  Furnished  with  this  idea,  he  comes  to  the  New 
Testament  and  endeavours  to  show  that  it  is  the  key  to  the 
true  meaning  of  the  many  texts  in  the  Gospel,  some  fifty 
in  all,  in  which  the  title  Son  of  Man  occurs.  This 
Messianic  title  in  the  mouth  of  Jesus,  we  are  told,  signifies 


Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    227 

that  He  is  not  a  man  as  other  men,  but  the  man,  the  abso- 
lute, human-divine  man;  and  three  passages  are  singled  out 
in  which  the  meaning  is  said  to  be  specially  apparent 
These  are  Mark  ii.  10  (Matt.  ix.  6;  Luke  v.  24);  Mark  ii. 
27,  28  (Matt.  xii.  8;  Luke  vi.  5);  and  Matt.  xii.  32  (Luke 
xii.  10).  In  the  first  it  is  said  of  the  Son  of  Man  that  He 
hath  power  on  the  earth  (Ini  rrji  yi}C)  to  forgive  sin.  The 
expression  italicized  is  assumed  to  be  set  over  against 
an  unexpressed  kv  t<5  ovpavcp,  and  the  following  train  of 
thought  is  extracted  from  the  text:  In  heaven  above  God 
Himself,  of  course,  forgives  sin,  but  that  His  grace  may  be 
available  to  men  He  must  have  an  organ  upon  earth,  a 
Son  of  Man  among  the  children  of  men,  who  knows  the 
whole  will  of  God  in  heaven,  who  as  man  can  speak  and 
act  as  one  in  complete  unity  with  God,  that  is,  the  Messiah, 
as  the  man  who  is  absolutely  one  with  God,  and  the  very 
image  of  God.  In  the  second  passage  Christ  claims  for 
Himself,  as  Son  of  Man,  lordship  over  the  Sabbath  day. 
Beyschlag  thinks  the  Messianic  import  of  the  title  in  this 
place  very  clear,  "since  only  as  the  Messiah  can  Jesus  have 
the  power  to  set  aside  a  Mosaic,  yea  divine  ordinance,  like 
that  of  the  Sabbath."  He  lays  stress  on  the  relation  be- 
tween the  two  assertions:  the  Sabbath  was  made  for  man, 
and  the  Son  of  Man  is  lord  of  the  Sabbath,  and  thinks  that 
the  idea  intended  is  this,  that  the  Son  of  Man  is  archetype, 
prince,  head  of  men,  in  whom  the  superiority  to  the  Sab- 
bath, in  principle  belonging  to  humanity,  becomes  an 
actual  authority  to  break  through  its  prohibitions.  The 
third  text  is  the  well-known  one  concerning  blasphemy 
against  the  Son  of  Man.  Our  author's  comments  thereon 
are  as  follows:  "  Let  us  consider  the  relation  here  indicated 
between  the  Son  of  Man  and  the  Holy  Ghost.  It  is  a 
relation  of  distinction,  and  yet  of  close  connection.  The 
distinction  is,  that  in  the  Son  of  Man  the  revelation  of  God 
to  men  is  made  in  mediated,  and,  so  far,  veiled  form,  there- 
fore may  be  misunderstood,  so  that  the  blasphemer  can 
always  have  the  benefit  of  the  prayer,  "Forgive  them, 
they  know  not  what  they  do;"  but  in  the  Holy  Ghost  the 
revelation  is  made  immediately,  inwardly,  therefore  unmis- 
takably; therefore  there  is  no  excuse  for  the  blasphemer. 


228  The  Humiliation  of  CJirist. 

At  the  same  time,  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  thought  of  as 
above  the  Son  of  Man,  but  in  Him.     The  Son  of  Man  is 
the  man  who  has  the  spirit  of  God  in  His  entire  fulness, 
whose   inmost   though   unrecognised   essence  is   the  Holy 
Spirit,  the  man  whose  human  appearance  is  the  medium  of 
the  absolute  revelation  of  God.     To  this  corresponds  the 
fact,  obvious  in  the  text,  that  the  blasphemy  of  the  Son  of 
Man    is  represented  as    the  most    heinous   of  pardonable 
sins." :      These   are   very   questionable    interpretations    of 
familiar  sayings  of  Christ.     Regarding  the  last  of  the  three, 
in    particular,    I    am    very   sure   that   it  misses    the   point. 
"  Offences  against  the  Son  of  Man  are  pardonable,  but  that 
is  all;  such  sins  form  the  extreme  limit  of  the  forgivable," 
so    gives    the   sense    Beyschlag,    very   erroneously   in   my 
judgment.     Jesus  did  not  mean  to  represent   sins  against 
Himself  as  barely  forgivable;  but  rather,  with  characteristic 
magnanimity,  as  easily  forgivable,  because  not  more  heinous 
than  sins  against  any  other  good  man,  and  due  to  the  same 
general  causes.     He  looked   upon  it  as  a  thing  of  course 
that  He  should  be  exposed  to  misunderstanding,  calumny, 
criticism,  contradiction,  and  that  just  because  He  was  the 
Son  of  Man;  and  He  warned  the  Pharisees  of  their  danger, 
not  because  they  were  sinning  against  Him,  the  ideal  Man, 
but  because  they  were  not  sinning  against  Him  through 
ignorance,  misapprehension,  and  prejudice,  but  against  the 
Holy  Ghost;  being  convinced  in  their  hearts  that  Beelzebub 
could  not  do  the  things  they  saw  Him  do,  yet  pretending 
to  believe  that  he  could  and  did.     The  second  passage — 
that  relating  to  the  lordship  of  the  Son  of  Man — does  not, 
any  more  than  the  one  just  referred  to,  require  for  its  inter- 
pretation that  we  understand  the  name  Son  of  Man  as  a 
title  of  dignity.     Christ  claimed  power  to  exercise  lordship 
over  the  Sabbath  in  the  interest  of  humanity,  on  the  ground 
of  His  sympathy  with  mankind — a  far  more  reliable  inter- 
preter of  the  divine  purpose    in    the   institution    than  the 
merciless  rigour  of  the   Pharisees.     The  Sabbath,  He  con- 
tended, was  made  for  man;  it  is  a  gift  of  God  to  weary, 
burdened  sons  of  Adam.     Charity  was  the  motive  of  the 
institution,  and  I,  just  because  I  am  the  Son  of  Man,  heart 

1   Christolo^ie,  p.  24. 


Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    229 

and  soul  in  sympathy  with  humanity,  and  bearing  its 
burden  on  my  spirit,  am  Lord  of  the  Sabbath  day,  fitted 
and  entitled  to  say  how  it  may  best  be  observed.  The 
first  of  the  three  texts  is  more  obscure,  though  one  can 
have  no  hesitation  in  pronouncing  Beyschlag's  interpreta- 
tion forced  and  artificial,  as  even  he  himself  seems  to  feel, 
from  the  apologetic  manner  in  which  he  introduces  it, 
asking:  "  Do  we  draw  too  much  from  the  words  when  we 
find  in  them  the  following  train  of  thought  ?  "  To  my  view, 
our  Lord  meant  to  meet  with  a  redoubled,  intensified  nega- 
tive the  Pharisaic  notions  in  respect  to  the  forgiveness  of 
sin.  They  viewed  God's  relation  to  sin  altogether  from  the 
side  of  His  majesty  and  holiness.  The  pardon  of  sin  was 
an  affair  of  state,  performed  with  a  grudge,  and  with  awe- 
inspiring  ceremony,  and  competent  only  to  the  divine  king. 
Christ  regarded  God's  relation  to  sin  from  the  side  of  His 
grace  and  charity.  In  effect,  He  says  to  His  sanctimonious 
hearers:  God  is  not  such  an  one  as  ye  imagine  Him.  He 
is  not  severe  and  implacable,  and  slow  to  pardon  offences, 
and  jealous  of  His  prerogative  in  the  rare  grudging  exercise 
of  mercy.  He  is  good  and  ready  to  forgive,  and  He  has  no 
desire  to  monopolize  the  privilege  of  forgiving.  He  is  will- 
ing that  it  should  be  exercised  by  all  in  whom  dwells  His 
own  spirit  of  love,  that  men  on  earth  should  imitate  the 
Father  in  Heaven,  and  say  to  a  penitent:  Thy  sins  be  for- 
given. My  right  to  forgive  rests  on  this,  that  I  am  the  Son 
of  Man,  the  sympathetic  friend  of  the  sinful,  full  of  the 
grace  and  charity  of  heaven;  but  as  this  is  a  reason  which 
ye  seem  unable  to  appreciate,  let  me  show  you  in  another 
way  that  I  have  the  authority  ye  call  in  question  by  heal- 
ing the  pardoned  one's  physical  malady. 

In  these  texts,  as  I  understand  them,  the  title  Son  of 
Man  signifies  the  sympathetic  man,  qui  nihil  humani  alienum 
putat.  In  other  texts  the  title  seems  rather  to  signify  the 
unprivileged  man  par  excellence.  To  this  class  belongs  the 
familiar  pathetic  saying:  "The  foxes  have  holes,  and  the 
birds  of  the  air  have  nests,  but  the  Son  of  Man  hath  not 
where  to  lay  His  head."  Beyschlag,  indeed,  claims  this 
text  also  as  a  support  to  his  theory,  paraphrasing  it,  though 
Son  of  Man,  yet  such  is  my  lot.     But  surely  it  is  far  more 


230  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

natural  to  find  in  the  name  the  reason  of  the  fact  stated, 
and  to  read,  Such  is  my  lot  because  I  am  the  Son  of  Man, 
and  nothing  else  is  to  be  looked  for  in  my  company.  This 
construction  is  further  recommended  by  the  consideration 
that  it  removes  from  the  saying  a  tone  of  querulousness 
which,  on  the  other  view,  seems  to  characterize  it,  but 
which  was  utterly  foreign  to  Christ's  temper.  Christ  spoke 
of  His  lot  as  a  homeless  one,  not  as  a  very  hard,  unworthy 
lot  for  Him,  the  Ideal  Man,  but  as  a  matter  of  course  for 
the  unprivileged  Son  of  Man,  in  the  same  way  as  He 
regarded  blasphemy  against  Himself  as  a  commonplace 
occurrence,  not  as  a  specially  heinous  offence;  for  why 
should  not  He,  the  Son  of  Man,  be  evil  spoken  of  as  well  as 
any  other  son  of  man  ?  So,  in  the  parable  of  the  tares,  the 
lesson  of  patience  with  evil  in  the  kingdom  is  tacitly  en- 
forced by  the  consideration  that  the  Son  of  Man  has  to 
endure  the  counterworking  of  the  evil  one,  and  takes  it 
patiently.  I,  the  Son  of  Man,  have  to  see  my  labour  in 
sowing  the  seed  of  the  kingdom  marred;  it  is  a  part  of  the 
curriculum  of  trial  through  which  I  must  pass.  I  meekly 
accept  my  lot  as  the  Son  of  Man;  see  that  ye  bear  kindred 
experiences  in  the  same  spirit. 

These  two  attributes,  then,  at  least,  are  denoted  by  the 
title  under  consideration.  The  Son  of  Man  is  the  unpriv- 
ileged man  and  the  sympathetic  man.  But  He  is  more. 
For  there  are  texts  in  which  the  Son  of  Man,  now  humbled 
and  unprivileged,  is  spoken  of  as  the  expectant  of  a  king- 
dom, texts  in  which  a  conscious  reference  to  the  passage 
in  Daniel  is  apparent,  showing  that  it  is  at  least  one  of  the 
Old  Testament  sources  of  the  title.1  These  texts  show 
that  if  Jesus  was  emphatically  the  unprivileged  man,  He 
was  so  not  by  constraint,  but  voluntarily  and  from  philan- 
thropic motives,  and  that  His  position  as  the  Man  of  Sor- 
rows involved  an  incongruity  between  lot  and  intrinsic 
dignity.  The  Son  of  Man  is  more  than  He  seems;  there 
is  a  mystery  about  Him;  the  name  assumed,  while  revealing 
much  conceals  something;  revealing  His  heart,  it  conceals 
His  dignity,  it  is  an  incognito  congenial  to  the  humour  of 

1  Among  other  sources  which  have  been  suggested  are  the  eighth  psalm  and 
the  Protevangelium.     Keim  favours  the  former,  Hofmann  the  latter. 


Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    231 

a  loving  lowly  nature.  I  agree,  therefore,  with  such  writers 
as  Keim,  who  recognise  in  this  title,  Son  of  Man,  the  ex- 
pression of  a  double  consciousness,  that  of  one  whose  present 
state  and  mind  are  lowly,  and  that  of  one  who  knows  that 
a  high  destiny  awaits  Him;  the  former  phase  of  conscious- 
ness being  the  one  mainly  turned  outwards  towards  the 
world;  th2  latter,  the  one  kept  in  the  background  or  in  the 
shade — the  side  turned  inwards,  away  from  the  light.  And 
with  special  reference  to  Beyschlag's  theory,  I  must  main- 
tain that  the  title  Son  of  Man,  as  ordinarily  used  by  Christ, 
denotes  rather  the  reality  of  His  humanity  than  its  ideality, 
though  the  latter  as  a  fact  I  do  not  deny.  The  reality  is 
the  thing  emphasized,  with  what  motive  may  be  a  question. 
Dorner  and  others  say,  to  bring  out  the  truth  that  human- 
ity is  not  the  native  element  of  the  speaker,  and  just  on* 
that  account  is  the  thing  which  needs  to  be  asserted. 
Jesus  calls  Himself  the  Son  of  Man,  because  He  is  conscious- 
of  being  more  than  man.  It  is  doubtful  if  we  are  entitled 
to  go  so  far,  though  certainly,  while  it  is  not  possible  to» 
demonstrate  to  the  satisfaction  of  opponents  that  a  divine 
consciousness  forms  the  background  of  the  human  con- 
sciousness directly  expressed  by  the  title,  the  view  of 
Dorner  fits  well  into  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  divinity,  as- 
sumed to  be  established  by  other  evidence.  I  prefer  to 
find  the  secret  of  the  emphasis  with  which  Jesus  asserted 
the  reality  of  His  humanity  in  the  spirit  of  humility  and 
love  which  regulated  His  whole  conduct.  He  called  Him- 
self Son  of  Man  as  the  bearer  of  the  grace  of  the  divine 
kingdom,  even  as  He  called  Himself  Christ  as  the  head  of 
the  kingdom,  to  whom  all  its  citizens  owed  allegiance,  and 
Son  of  God  as  the  proper  object  not  only  of  obedience  but 
of  worship. 

Into  the  elaborate  discussion  of  the  last-mentioned  title 
contained  in  Beyschlag's  treatise  I  cannot  enter.  Suffice 
it  to  say  that  in  the  theory  now  under  review  the  two  titles, 
Son  of  Man  and  Son  of  God,  are  practically  equivalent. 
From  an  analysis  of  texts  the  author  determines  the  fol- 
lowing as  the  characteristics  of  Christ's  divine  sonship: 
dependence  on  His  heavenly  Father,  likeness  to  His  Father, 
and  heavenly  descent,  implying  negatively  sinlessness,  and 


232  The   Humiliation  of  Christ. 

positively  that  Christ  is  not  an  ordinary  man,  but  the  man, 
the  heavenly  man.  The  chief  interest  of  his  discussion  of 
the  Johannine  account  of  our  Lord's  teaching  concerning 
His  person  turns  on  the  manner  in  which  he  deals  with  the 
doctrine  of  pre-existence.  That  he  resolves  into  an  ideal 
pre-existence  in  the  divine  mind.  As  a  sample  of  his  way 
of  making  texts  conform  to  his  theory,  we  may  take  his 
remarks  on  the  words,  "  Before  Abraham  was,  I  am."  *  He 
admits  that  the  text  is  susceptible  of  the  traditional  inter- 
pretation, but  contends  that  it  is  equally  susceptible  of  his, 
which  is  to  the  following  effect :  "  Jesus  beyond  question  speaks 
of  Himself  as  the  Messiah.  Abraham  had  rejoiced  to  see 
in  vision  the  day  of  Messiah's  appearing.  What  more 
natural  than  the  thought:  Before  Abraham  could  be  upon 
the  earth  must  the  Messiah  have  been  already  in  heaven; 
before  God  could  choose  Abraham  to  be  the  father  of  the 
people  of  the  promise,  the  content  of  the  promise,  Christ, 
must  have  existed  for  God  and  in  God."  The  pre-existence 
asserted  is  thus  a  mere  logical  inference,  and  it  is  a  mere 
pre-existence  in  idea  or  in  purpose.  This  may  be  a  very 
simple  thought,  as  Beyschlag  calls  it,  but  it  does  not  seem 
a  very  likely  thought  to  be  introduced  with  a  "  Verily, 
verily,  I  say  unto  you."  Such  a  solemn  formula  was  fitted 
to  prevent  hearers  from  seeing  the  real  nature  of  the  asser- 
tion as  a  mere  truism.  If  Jesus  had  meant  nothing  more 
than  that  God's  promise  of  a  Messiah  presupposed  the  ex- 
istence in  God's  mind  of  the  Messianic  idea,  He  would 
naturally  have  uttered  the  word  as  a  matter  of  course,  not 
with  the  solemn  preface  of  a  "  Verily,  verily."  Beyschlag 
thinks  the  use  of  the  present  tense  eijui,  I  am,  instead  of 
yMyr,  is  in  favour  of  his  interpretation.  Before  Abraham 
was,  I  was,  would  have  expressed  real  existence;  "  Before 
Abraham  was  I  am,"  expresses  merely  ideal  existence. 
But  by  the  same  reasoning  we  might  make  out  the  existence 
of  God  Himself  to  be  merely  ideal,  which  yet  Beyschlag 
does  not  believe  it  to  be.  For  is  it  not  written  in  the  nine- 
tieth psalm,  "  Before  the  mountains  were  brought  forth, 
■ere  ever  Thou  hadst  formed  the  earth  and  the  world,  from 
everlasting  to  everlasting,  Thou  (art),  O  God."     I  am  is 

1  John  viii.  58. 


Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    233 

the  proper  expression  to  denote  eternal  existence;  I  was 
would  have  conveyed  the  idea  of  a  temporal  existence, 
though  earlier  than  that  of  Abraham;  in  other  words,  the 
phrase  would  have  suggested  an  Arian  idea  of  the  pre- 
existent  state. 

Not  to  go  over  all  the  texts  discussed,  I  give  just  one 
more  sample  of  Beyschlag's  style  of  interpretation.  In 
John  xiii.  3  he  finds  the  culmination  of  the  process  by  which 
Jesus  gradually  came  to  know  who  He  was, — viz.  the  Ideal 
Man,  Ebenbild  of  God,  Urbild  of  man, — and  what  therefore 
must  have  been  His  history  before  He  came  into  the  world. 
The  evangelist,  we  are  told,  expressly  signalizes  that  the 
peculiar  consciousness  of  Jesus  first  reached  the  acme  of 
clearness  on  the  threshold  of  death.  When,  in  the  intro- 
duction of  the  history  of  the  passion,  he  writes:  Jesus, 
knowing  that  the  Father  had. given  all  things  into  His  hands, 
and  that  He  was  come  from  God,  and  went  to  God,  this  obser- 
vation were  wholly  idle  and  unintelligible,  if  thereby  he 
did  not  mean  to  say  that  Jesus  then  became  more  distinctly 
and  clearly  conscious  than  ever  before  of  His  relation  to 
God,  His  origin  from  Him,  and  His  return  to  Him.  In  this 
instance  Beyschlag's  ingenious  but  artificial  exegesis  seems 
to  me  to  reach  the  acme  of  unsatisfactoriness.  In  the 
words  quoted,  the  evangelist  expresses  in  the  first  place 
his  own  sense  of  the  magnitude  of  the  condescension  of 
his  Lord,  by  contrasting  the  intrinsic  dignity  of  Christ  with 
the  lowly  act  He  performed  in  the  supper  chamber.  He 
to  whom  all  things  were  given,  who  came  forth  from  God, 
and  who  was  about  to  go  to  God,  did  thus  and  thus.  He 
alludes  to  Christ's  consciousness  of  all  this  (e£8<as  6'It?6ovs), 
that  the  act  recorded  may  appear  not  merely  outwardly  an 
act  of  condescension,  but  an  act  expressive  of  a  wonderful 
spirit  of  condescension.  He  who  did  this  had  not  forgot 
who  He  was  and  what  was  His  high  destiny.  All  the  truth 
about  Himself  was  present  to  His  mind,  as  at  other  times, 
so  also  then.  The  intention  of  the  narrator  is  not  to  assert 
a  heightening  of  the  self-consciousness  of  Christ,  but  simply 
to  remark  for  the  sake  of  contrast  that  it  was  there.  The 
main  question  of  course  is,  what  were  the  contents  of  that 
self-consciousness.     Into  that  subject  I  do  not  here  go  at 


234  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

length;  only  I  may  remark,  that  Beyschlag's  theory  seems 
to  me  to  make  Christ's  consciousness  a  very  artificial  one. 
He  ascribes  to  Himself  a  great  many  high-sounding  titles, 
and  makes  concerning  Himself  a  great  many  extraordinary 
affirmations,  which  have  hitherto  led  the  whole  catholic 
Church  to  believe  that  nothing  could  do  justice  to  them 
short  of  the  doctrine  of  a  personal  pre-existence  before  the 
Incarnation,  but  which  we  are  given  to  understand  are 
nothing  more  than  inferences  (or  intuitions)  from  a  certain 
opinion  Jesus  entertained  of  Himself  as  the  Ideal  Man. 
Starting  with  a  purely  human  consciousness  of  His  relation 
to  God,  as  His  sinless,  holy  child,  He  comes  by  and  by  to 
think  of  Himself  as  "the  Son  of  Man"  prophesied  of  in 
Daniel,  the  thought  dawning  on  Him  at  the  Jordan  when 
He  was  baptized;  and  this  idea  once  conceived  gives  birth 
to  all  the  mystic  utterances  recorded  in  the  Gospels;  utter- 
ances rising  ever  higher  and  higher,  and  revealing  an  ever 
increasing  clearness  of  consciousness — one  notable  stage  in 
the  development  being  signalized  by  the  saying  recorded  in 
Matt.  xi.  27,  and  the  climax  being  reached  on  the  occasion 
of  the  feet-washing,  when  Jesus  at  length  knew,  as  He 
never  knew  before,  that  all  things  were  delivered  to  Him, 
that  He  came  forth  from  God,  and  was  about  to  return  to 
God.  Could  a  consciousness  having  such  a  genesis  be  pro- 
perly called  knowledge  ?  Every  one  of  the  mystic  affirma- 
tions made  by  Jesus  concerning  Himself  is  simply  an  infer- 
ence from  a  theory.  Christ  speaks  not  as  one  conscious 
of  certain  things  as  matters  of  fact  concerning  Himself,  but 
as  a  Platonic  philosopher,  out  of  the  depths  of  His  inner 
consciousness  constructing  a  theory  concerning  His  person. 
He  infers  His  pre-existence  from  the  notion  of  His  being 
the  Ideal  Man,  just  as  Plato  inferred,  from  his  way  of  con- 
ceiving the  universe,  the  eternal  existence  of  the  ideas  of 
all  things  in  the  divine  mind.  And  the  pre-existence  is 
of  the  same  sort.  It  is  merely  a  notional  existence.  The 
author  indeed  is  not  willing  to  allow  this.  He  maintains 
that  the  pre-existence  is  real  as  well  as  ideal.  The  pre- 
existence,  he  tells  us,  is  in  the  highest  sense  real,  and  even 
personal  in  a  sense,  for  how  can  the  eternal  image  (Ebenbild) 
of  the  personal  God,   in  which  God  reflects   Himself,  be 


Modern  Humanistic  Theories  of  Christ's  Person.    235 

otherwise  than  personal  ?  yet  over  against  the  existence 
of  the  historic  personality  it  is  ideal.  It  is  real  not  only 
because  all  that  God  thinks  and  wills  here  is  in  Him  already 
reality,  but  because  there  can  be  nothing  more  real  than 
the  divine  essence  as  God  represents  it  to  Himself,  and 
distinguishes  it  from  Himself  in  order  to  reveal  it  outwardly; 
ideal,  because  in  comparison  with  the  historical  person  it 
is  not  identical  therewith,  but  is  the  Urbild,  the  eternal 
idea,  the  inter-divine  principle  of  this  historical  person. 

It  will  be  evident  to  every  one  who  endeavours  to  form 
to  himself  a  distinct  conception  of  the  pre-existence  of 
Christ  as  represented  by  Beyschlag,  that  the  theory  advo- 
cated by  this  author  with  much  ingenuity  does  not,  any 
more  than  the  theories  previously  examined,  escape  from 
the  charge  of  mystery.  For  myself,  I  confess  my  inability 
to  form  any  clear  idea  of  what  the  pre-existent  state  of  the 
Logos  is  in  this  theory.  It  is  neither  one  thing  nor  another; 
it  hovers  between  idea  and  reality;  it  is  impersonal,  yet 
shares  in  the  personality,  thought,  and  will  of  God.  And 
while  speculatively  indefinite,  the  theory  has  no  practical 
compensations  to  commend  it.  It  is  liable  to  the  grave 
objection  that  it  includes  the  possibility  of  seeing  in  the 
Incarnation  a  manifestation  of  gracious,  free  condescension. 
Christ  did  not  come  into  the  world,  freely,  to  save  sinners. 
He  was  sent,  as  we  are  all  sent,  without  knowledge,  con- 
sciousness, or  choice;  sent  in  the  sense  of  being  born  into 
an  existence  which  dates  from  birth.  All  beyond,  the  so- 
called  pre-existence,  is  simply  a  nimbus  engendered  by  a 
poetic  imagination. 

In  closing  this  review  of  modern  humanistic  theories  of 
Christ's  person,  are  we  not  justified  in  repeating  the  ques- 
tion: To  whom  shall  we  go  to  escape  mystery  ?  We  cannot 
go  to  Baur,  for  there  we  meet  with  a  Christ  whom  theory 
requires  to  be  sinful,  while  all  the  facts  testify  to  sinless- 
ness.  Neither  can  we  go  to  Schleiermacher,  for  there  we 
meet  with  a  Christ  who  is  a  moral  miracle,  while  in  the 
interest  of  naturalistic  philosophy  He  is  not  allowed  to  be 
miraculous  in  other  respects.  We  cannot  go  to  Keim,  for 
there  we  meet  with  a  Christ  who  is  a  natural-supernatural 
being,  a  mere  man,  yet  something  altogether  exceptional 


236  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

and  outside  the  sphere  of  ordinary  humanity.  Still  less 
can  we  go  to  Haweis  and  other  popular  apostles  of  theo- 
logical liberalism,  for  there  we  meet  with  a  Christ  who  is 
a  congeries  of  crudities,  not  to  say  absurdities.  We  cannot 
even  find  rest  to  our  souls  in  the  Christ  offered  to  our  faith 
by  Beyschlag;  for  while  we  gladly  accept  Him  as  the  ideal 
of  humanity  realized,  we  cannot  understand  the  relation 
in  which  He  stands  to  God,  and  are  at  a  loss  to  know 
whether  what  is  presented  to  our  view  be  the  eternal  Son 
of  the  catholic  theory,  or  something  else  of  which  we  can 
form  no  distinct  idea.  We  therefore  decide  to  remain  with 
the  Christ  of  the  creeds,  feeling  that  if  there  be  in  Him 
that  which  perplexes  and  confounds  our  intellect,  there  is 
also  that  which  gives  unspeakable  satisfaction  to  the  heart; 
a  Christ  who  came  from  glory  to  save  the  lost,  who  hum- 
bled Himself  to  become  man  and  die  on  the  cross;  a 
Christ  in  whom  God  manifests  Himself  as  a  self-sacrificing 
being,  and  exhibits  to  our  view  the  maximum  of  Gracious 
Possibility. 


LECTURE  VI. 

CHRIST  THE  SUBJECT   OF  TEMPTATION  AND 
MORAL   DEVELOPMENT 

We  are  now  to  consider  the  humiliation  of  Christ  on  its 
ethical  side;  that  is,  we  are  to  regard  Christ  on  earth  as 
subject  to  an  experience  of  temptation,  and  undergoing  a 
process  of  moral  development. 

I.  With  reference  to  the  former  of  these  topics,  the  teach- 
ing of  Scripture  is  that  Christ  was  tempted  in  all  respects 
as  we  are,  without  sin.  The  task  prescribed  is,  to  present 
such  a  view  of  our  Lord's  curriculum  of  temptation,  as  shall 
hold  the  balance  impartially  between  the  two  clauses  of 
the  statement  just  quoted;  allowing  the  subject  tempted, 
on  the  one  hand,  to  be  in  all  respects  possible  like  unto 
His  Brethren;  and  on  the  other,  preserving  the  sinlessness 
of  His  nature  and  of  His  conduct  inviolable.  That  the  task 
is  no  easy  one,  is  shown  by  the  history  of  opinion,  which 
presents  variations  ranging  from  the  denial  of  everything 
in  Christ's  human  nature  that  could  be  even  the  innocent 
occasion  of  temptation,  to  the  opposite  extreme  of  an 
ascription  to  that  nature  of  such  inherent  vitium  as,  without 
external  provocatives,  directly  involved  temptations  to  sin 
of  the  most  violent  kind. 

If  we  ask  ourselves  the  question,  What  was  there  in 
Christ,  on  the  supposition  of  His  perfect  sinlessness,  which 
helped  to  make  temptation,  in  some  respects  at  least,  if  not 
in  all,  possible  ?  it  readily  occurs  to  refer  to  the  physical 
infirmities  of  His  human  nature.  Every  being  who  is  cap- 
able of  hunger  and  thirst,  pleasure  and  pain,  hope  and  fear, 
joy  and  sorrow,  is  liable  to  be  tempted;  for  he  may  be 
placed  in  circumstances  in  which  he  is  obliged  to  choose 


23S  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

between  doing  wrong  and  denying  himself  the  gratification 
of  an  appetite,  a  desire,  or  an  affection  in  itself  innocent. 
If  we  assume  that,  in  becoming  man,  Christ  took  unto 
Himself  a  nature  subject  to  such  infirmities  as  are  common 
to  men,  then  we  impose  on  ourselves  the  necessity  of  ad- 
mitting that  He  entered  into  a  state  involving  at  least  some 
experience  of  temptation.  This  assumption  the  Church 
catholic  has  in  all  ages  made.  Damascenus  but  expresses 
the  common  faith  of  Christians  when  he  says:  '•  We  confess 
that  Christ  assumed  all  the  physical  and  sinless  affections 
of  man.  For  He  took  the  whole  man,  and  all  that  belongs 
to  man  save  sin.  These  physical  sinless  affections  are  the 
things  which  are  not  in  our  power,  and  which  have  entered 
into  human  life  through  the  curse  pronounced  upon  trans- 
gression— such  as  hunger,  thirst,  weariness,  toil,  tears,  cor- 
ruption, dread  of  death,  fear,  the  agony,  whence  sweat  and 
drops  of  blood."  '  Even  this  obvious  and  elementary  truth, 
however,  has  not  escaped  contradiction.  As  is  well  known 
to  students  of  Church  history,  the  doctrine  that  Christ  had 
experience  in  His  body  of  the  infirmities  above  enumerated 
was  denied  by  one  of  the  most  eminent  of  the  early  Fathers, 
viz.  Hilary  of  Poitiers,  who  may  be  regarded  as  the  rep- 
resentative of  one  extreme  in  opinion  on  the  present  subject. 
This  Father  taught  in  the  most  explicit  terms  (for  how- 
ever obscure  his  style,  there  can  here  be  no  reasonable 
doubt  as  to  his  meaning),  that  Christ's  body  was  not  sub- 
ject to  pain,  nor  His  soul  to  fear.  In  the  crucifixion  Christ 
sustained  in  His  flesh  the  onset,  but  not  the  pain,  of  what 
we  call  the  passion.  When  the  nails  were  driven  into  His 
hands,  and  the  spear  was  thrust  into  His  side,  it  was  as 
when  a  dart  pierces  water,  or  punctures  fire,  or  wounds  the 
air;  the  dart  retains  its  power  of  piercing  and  puncturing 
and  wounding,  but  does  not  exercise  it  on  these  objects; 
because  it  is  not  in  the  nature  of  water  to  be  pierced,  or  of 
fire  to  be  punctured,  or  of  air  to  be  wounded.  The  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  did  indeed  suffer  when  He  was  smitten,  sus- 
pended, crucified,  and  when  He  died;  but  the  passion  rush- 
ing on  His  body,  though  a  real  passion,  did  not  exert  the 

1  De  Fide  Orthodoxd,  lib.  iii  cap.  xx.     The  Greek  expression  for  sinless  physi 
cal  infirmities,  as  employed  by  Damas.,  is,  tcc  q>v6ix<x  xai  ddiafiXT/ra  itatw. 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Teinptation.  239 

nature  of  passion;  the  virtue  of  His  body,  without  sense  of 
pain  or  penalty,  receiving  the  violence  of  the  penalty  raging 
against  itself.1  All  the  other  physical  infirmities  were 
equally  unreal,  the  outward  phenomena  being  admitted  as 
matters  of  fact  but  not  allowed  to  retain  the  physiological 
or  psychological  meaning  which  they  have  for  ordinary 
men.  Christ  hungered,  thirsted,  and  wept;  but  these  phe- 
nomena were  simply  an  assumption  of  the  custom  or  habit 
of  the  human  body,  in  order  to  demonstrate  the  truth  of  His 
body.  There  is  no  evidence  that  Christ  always  ate  or  drank 
or  grieved,  when  He  hungered  or  thirsted  or  shed  tears; 
but  even  when  He  did  actually  take  food  and  drink,  He 
was  not  satisfying  the  need  of  His  body,  but  simply  accom- 
modating Himself  to  custom.2  The  mental  affections 
ascribed  to  Christ  in  the  gospel  record,  in  connection  with 
the  passion,  are  explained  away  in  similar  fashion.  His 
fear  of  death  is  absolutely  denied.3  His  soul-sorrow  in  the 
garden  was  simply  solicitude  for  the  disciples,  lest  the 
coming  trial  should  prove  too  much  for  their  faith;  His 
prayer  that  the  cup  might  pass,  if  possible,  was  simply  a 
prayer  that  God  would  spare  these  disciples  a  trial  above 
what  they  could  bear; 4  when  He  said,  "  My  soul  is  exceed- 
ing sorrowful  even  unto  death"  He  did  not  mean,  by  the 
expression  "  even  unto  death,"  to  indicate  that  death  was 

1  De  Trinitate,  lib.  x.  c.  23:  In  quo,  quaravis  aut  ictus  incideret  aut  vulnus 
descenderet,  aut  nodi  concurrerent,  aut  suspensio  elevaret,  afferrent  quidem  haec 
impetum  passionis,  non  tamen  dolorem  passionis  inferrent:  at  telum  aliquod  aut 
aquam  perforans,  aut  ignem  compungens,  aut  aera  vulnerans,  omnes  quidem  has 
passiones  naturae  suae  infert,  ut  foret,  ut  compungat,  ut  vulneret:  sed  naturam 
suam  in  haec  passio  illata  non  retinet,  dum  in  natura  non  est  vel  aquam  forari,  vel 
pungi  ignem,  vel  aerem  vulnerari,  quamvis  naturae  teli  sit  et  vulnerare,  et  compun- 
gere,  et  forare.  Passus  quidem  est  Dominus  Jesus  Christus,  dum  caeditur,  dum 
suspenditur,  dum  crucifigitur,  dum  moritur:  sed  in  corpus  Domini  irruens  passio,  nee 
non  fuit  passio,  nee  tamen  naturam  passionis  exseruit;  dum  et  poenali  ministerio 
desaevit,  et  Virtus  corporis  sine  sensu  poenae  vim  poenae  in  se  desaevientis  excepit. 

5  Ibid.  x.  c.  24:  Neque  enim  turn  cum  sitivit  aut  esurivil  aut  flevit,  bibisse 
Dominus  aut  manducasse  aut  doluisse  monstratus  est ;  sed  ad  demonstrandam  cor- 
poris veritatem,  corporis  consuetudo  suscepia  est,  ita  ut  naturae  nostrae  consuetu- 
dine  consuetudini  sit  corporis  satisfactum.  Vel  cum  potum  et  cibum  accepit,  non 
se  necessitati  corporis,  sed  consuetudini  tribuit. 

3  Ibid.  x.  c.  27. 

*  Ibid.  x.  c.  37:  Nod  ergo  sibi  tristis  est,  neque  sibi  orat;  sed  illis  quos  monet 
orare  pervigiles,  ne  in  :os  ca]jc  passionis  incumbat;  quern  a  se  transire  orat,  ne  ia 
his  scilicet  maneat. 


240  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

the  cause  of  His  sorrow,  but  the  end  or  limit  of  it;  as  only 
in  the  things  which  were  to  happen  to  Him  before  His 
death, — in  the  nocturnal  apprehension,  the  scourging,  the 
spitting,  the  crown  of  thorns, — was  there  any  cause  for 
solicitude  lest  the  faith  of  His  followers  should  fail;  all  that 
happened  afterwards,  such  as  the  miracles  accompanying 
the  crucifixion  and  the  resurrection,  being  rather  fitted  to 
confirm  their  weak  faith.1  As  for  the  bloody  sweat  and 
the  ministry  of  angels  in  the  garden,  it  being  impossible  to 
find  anything  in  the  case  of  the  disciples  which  could  ac- 
count for  these,  they  are  got  rid  of  by  the  remark,  that  in 
very  many  Latin  and  Greek  codices  no  mention  is  made 
of  them; 2  and  for  those  whom  this  summary  course  might 
not  satisfy,  it  is  added,  that  if  Christ  was  sad  for  us,  He 
must  also  have  been  comforted  for  us,  and  that  the  bloody 
sweat  was  no  sign  of  infirmity,  because  it  is  contrary  to 
nature  to  sweat  blood,  and  therefore  the  phenomenon  must 
be  regarded  as  a  display  of  power,  rather  than  as  an  effect 
of  weakness.* 

The  grounds  on  which  Hilary  based  this  strange  doketic 
view  of  our  Lord's  human  nature  were  these:  Counter  facts 
and  words  recorded  in  the  Gospels  indicative  of  power  and 
triumph  rather  than  of  weakness  and  fear;  the  miraculous 
birth;  and  the  sinlessness  of  Christ.  As  to  the  first:  how 
could  that  body  have  the  nature  of  our  pain,  which,  unlike 
our  bodies,  could  walk  without  sinking  on  the  water  ?  how 
could  He  burn  with  thirst,  who  is  able  to  give  drink  to  the 
thirsty;  or  endure  the  pangs  of  hunger,  who  could  curse  the 
tree  that  refused  its  fruits  to  Him  ?  Again,  how  can  He 
have  feared  death,  who  voluntarily  delivered  Himself  to  the 
armed  band;  or  felt  sadness  in  view  of  death,  who,  in  ref- 
erence to  that  very  death,  said:   "  Now  is  the  Son  of  Matt 

1  De  Trinitate,  x.  cc.  36,  39. 

*  Ibid.  x.  c.  41:  Nee  sane  ignorandum  a  nobis  est,  et  in  Graecis  et  in  Latinis 
codicibus  complurimis,  vel  de  adveniente  angelo,  vel  de  sudore  sanguinis  nil 
scriptum  reperiri. 

3  Ibid.  x.  c.  41:  Si  nobis  tristis  est,  necesse  est  ut  propter  nos  sit  comfortatus; 
quia  qui  de  nobis  tristis  est,  et  de  nobis  comfortatus  est,  ea  comfortatus  est  condi- 
rione  qua  tristis  est.  Sudorem  vero  nemo  infirmilati  audebit  deputare;  quia  et 
contra  naturam  est  sudare  sanguinem.  Nee  infirmitas  est,  quod  potestas,  non  se 
cundum  naturae  consuetudinem,  gessit. 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  241 

glorified;  "  or  experienced  real  desertion  when  He  uttered 
the  cry:  "  My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me  ?" 
who  shortly  before  had  said  to  His  judges:  "  Henceforth 
shall  ye  see  the  Son  of  Man  sitting  on  the  right  hand  of 
power  "  ? '  As  to  the  second  ground  of  the  theory,  Hilary 
held  that,  in  consequence  of  the  miraculous  conception,  the 
body  of  Christ  necessarily  differed  in  its  properties  from  the 
bodies  of  ordinary  men.  Inasmuch  as  it  was  born  of  the 
Virgin,  it  was  a  real  body;  but  because  it  was  conceived  by 
the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  it  was  a  body  free  from  all 
infirmity.2  Not  formed  of  terrestrial  elements,  although 
deriving  its  origin  from  the  mystery  of  conception,  the  body 
of  the  Son  of  Man  was  exempt  from  the  evils  of  a  merely 
terrestrial  body;  the  power  of  the  Highest  communicating 
to  it  His  own  virtue,  while  forming  it  in  the  Virgin's 
womb.*  Finally,  as  to  the  third  ground  of  his  peculiar 
theory,  Hilary  held  himself  entitled  or  bound  to  exclude 
Christ's  humanity  from  all  participation  in  infirmity,  because 
of  its  sinlessness,  which  he  regarded  as  the  result  of  the 
miraculous  birth.  He  made  no  distinction  between  vice  in 
the  moral  sense  and  infirmity  in  the  physical  sense,  and 
from  the  absence  of  the  former  from  the  humanity  of 
Christ  he  inferred  the  absence  of  the  latter.  In  Christ,  he 
held,  was  the  truth  of  the  human  body,  but  not  its  vices, 
the  similitude  of  sinful  flesh,  but  not  the  flesh  of  sin  itself. 
The  Saviour's  humanity,  having  a  peculiar  origin,  was  free 
from  the  sins  and  the  vices  of  humanity  coming  into  being 
by  ordinary  generation.4 

1  De  Trinitate,  x.  cc.  23,  24,  27,  29,  31. 

2  Ibid.  x.  c.  35:  Genuit  etenim  ex  se  corpus,  sed  quod  conceptum  esset  ex 
Spiritu;  habens  quidem  in  se  sui  corporis  veritatem,  sed  non  habens  naturae 
infirmitatem:  dum  et  corpus  lllud  corporis  Veritas  est  quod  generatur  ex  virgine: 
et  extra  corporis  nostri  infirmitatem  est,  quod  spiritalis  conceptionis  sumpsit 
exordium. 

3  Ibid.  x.  c.  44:  Extra  terreni  est  corporis  mala,  non  terrenis  inchoatum  corpus 
elementis,  etsi  originem  filii  hominis  sanctus  Spiritus  per  sacramentum  conceptionis 
invexit.  Nempe  et  Altissimi  virtus  virtutem  corporis,  quod  ex  conceptione  Spiritus 
Virgo  gignebat,  admiscuit. 

4  Ibid.  x.  c.  25:  Habuit  enim  corpus,  sed  originis  suae  proprium;  neque  ex 
vitiis  humanae  conceptionis  existens,  sed  in  formam  corporis  nostri  virtutis  suae 
potestate  subsistens:  gerens  quidem  nos  per  formam  servi,  sed  a  peccatis  et  a  vitiis 
humani  corporis  liber.  So  also  c.  35:  in  natura  ejus  corporis  infirmitatem  naturae 
corporeae  non  fuisse.   .  .  .  et  passionem  illam  licet  illata  corpori  sit,  non  tamen 


242  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

It   is   not   surprising  that   men   should  be  unwilling,  or 
almost  unable,  to  believe  that  a  theologian  of  such  eminence 
as  Hilary  could  invent  or  countenance  a  theory  so  open  to 
the  charge  of  Doketism  as  the  one  of  which  an  outline  has 
just  been  given;    and,   accordingly,   many  attempts   have 
been  made  to  apologise  for  his  views,  and  to  bring  them 
into  tolerable  accord  with  Catholic  orthodoxy.     So  far  as 
I  can  judge,  these  attempts  are  by   no  means  successful. 
The  best  thing  that  could  be  said  in  Hilary's  behalf,  were 
it  well  grounded,  is  the  statement  made  by  Chemnitz,  on 
the  authority  of  Bonaventura,  that  William  of  Paris  had 
seen  a  writing  of  the  same  Father,  in  which  the  doctrine 
taught  in  the  treatise  on  the  Trinity  concerning  Christ's 
human  nature  was  retracted.1     The  apology,  however,  most 
in  favour  with  theologians,  both  Catholic  and  Protestant, 
is,  that  Hilary's  intention  was  to  deny,  not  the  reality,  but 
the  necessity  of  our  Lord's  experience  of  infirmity;  in  the 
words  of  Dorner,   "  to  avoid  representing  the  weakness  of 
Christ  as  a  physical  determination  and  necessity;  and,  on 
the  contrary,  to  view  all  His  sufferings  as  deeds,  that  is,  as 
ethical."2     But   this    representation    is    doubly  inaccurate. 
In  the  first  place,   Hilary  does  distinctly  deny  the  reality 
of  the  pain  supposed  to  be  endured  by  Christ.     What  our 
Lord  suffered  on  the  cross  was  the  impetus  of  the  passion, 
not  the  pain  of  it.     He  was,  so  to  speak,  as  one  whose  body 
is   under  chloroform,    and   while   unconscious   through    its 
influence,  undergoes  surgical  operations  which  in  ordinary 
circumstances  would  produce  pain.     What   Christ   willed, 
therefore,  was  not  to  endure  real  pain,  which  was  foreign 
to  His  miraculously  conceived  body,  but  simply  to  sustain 
assaults  which  would  have  caused  pain  to  any  other  man. 
Hilary,  in  short,  made  Christ's  whole  experience  of  infirmity 
as  doketic  as  Cyril  made  His  growth  in  knowledge;  it  was 

naturam  dolendi  corpori  intulisse:  quia  quamvis  forma  corporis  nostri  esset  in 
Domino,  non  tamen  in  vitiosae  infirmitatis  nostrae  esset  corpore  qui  non  esset  in 
origine,  quod  ex  conceptu  Spiritus  sancti  Virgo  progenuit:  quod  licet  sexus  sui 
officio  genuerit,  tamen  non  terrenae  conceptionis  suscepit  elementis. 

1  De  duabus  natitris,  c.  3,  p.  16. 

2  Person  of  Christ,  div.  i.  vol.  ii.  p.  413.  To  the  same  effect  Thomisius, 
Christi  Person  und  Werk,  ii.  p.  183.  Aquinas,  Summa,  pars  iii.  q.  15,  says: 
Non  veritatem  doloris,  sed  necessitatem  excludere  mtendit. 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  243 

simply  an  economic  accommodation  to  the  fashion  of  that 
humanity  which  He  had  assumed.  The  painless  One  freely 
subjected  Himself  to  experiences  which  ordinarily  cause 
pain,  just  as,  according  to  Cyril,  the  omniscient  One,  out 
of  respect  for  the  demands  of  the  kenosis,  consented  to 
seem  ignorant,  and  accommodate  the  manifestation  of  a 
knowledge  perfect  in  itself  from  the  first,  to  the  stages  of 
His  physical  growth.  But  if  this  comparison  be  disallowed, 
then  we  cannot  do  better  than  fall  back  on  one  employed 
by  Hilary  himself  to  explain  his  view,  viz.  between  the  way 
in  which  Christ  bore  griefs  and  pains,  and  the  way  in  which 
He  bore  sins.  We  are  accustomed  to  think  of  Christ  as 
bearing  sin,  in  the  sense  of  bearing  real  griefs  and  pains  as 
their  penalty.  But  Hilary's  doctrine  is,  that  Christ  bore 
grief  as  He  bore  sin.  Quoting  the  prophetic  passage  begin- 
ning with  the  words,  "  surely  He  hath  borne  our  griefs," 
he  proceeds  to  say:  "Therefore  the  opinion  of  human 
judgment  is  deceived,  thinking  that  this  man  feels  pain 
because  He  suffers.  For,  while  bearing  our  sins,  as  having 
assumed  the  body  of  our  sin,  He  Himself  nevertheless  sins 
not.  For  He  was  sent  in  the  similitude  of  sinful  flesh; 
bearing,  indeed,  sins  in  the  flesh,  but  ours.  So  likewise  He 
endures  pain  for  us;  not,  however,  as  experiencing  the  sense 
of  our  pain,  because  He  was  found  in  fashion  as  a  man, 
having  in  Himself  the  body  of  pain,  but  not  having  the 
nature  which  can  feel  pain;  because  though  His  habit  is 
that  of  man,  His  origin  is  not  of  man,  being  due  to  a 
miraculous  conception  by  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Hence  He  was  esteemed  to  be  stricken  with  pain,  smitten, 
and  afflicted.  For  He  took  the  form  of  a  servant,  and  the 
fact  of  His  being  a  man  born  of  the  Virgin  gave  rise  to  the 
opinion,  that  in  His  passion  He  endured  the  pain  which  is 
natural  to  us."  x 

1  De  Trinitate,  x.  c.  47:  Hie  peccata  nostra  portat,  et  pro  nobis  dolet:  el  not 
txistimavimus  eum  in  doloribus  esse,  et  in  plaga,  et  in  vexatione.  Ipse  autetn 
vulneratus  est  propter  iniquitates  nostras,  et  itifirmitatus  est  propter  peccata 
nostra.  Fallitur  ergo  humanae  aestimationis  opinio,  putans  hunc  (hinc  ?)  dolere 
quod  patitur.  Portans  enim  peccata  nostra,  peccati  nostri  scilicet  corpus  assumens, 
tamen  ipse  non  peccat.  Missus  namque  est  in  peccati  carnis  similitudine;  portans 
quidem  in  carne  peccata,  sed  nostra.  Et  pro  nobis  dolet,  non  et  doloris  nostri 
dolet  sensu:  quia  et  habitu  ut  homo  repertus,  habens  in  se  doloris  corpus,  sed  non 


244  TJic  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

Conceding,  however,  the  point  as  to  the  reality  of  Christ's 
experience  of  pain,  I  remark  in  the  second  place,  with  re- 
spect to  the  apology  for  Hilary  now  under  consideration, 
that  it  does  not  suffice  to  clear  that  Father  from  the  charge 
of  doketism  to  say,  that  he  merely  wished  to  make  the 
Saviour's  endurance  of  suffering  a  matter,  not  of  necessity, 
but  of  free  will.  For  there  are  two  senses  in  which  volun- 
tariness may  be  predicated  of  Christ's  sufferings  and  expei- 
ences  of  infirmity;  one  which  is  perfectly  compatible  with 
the  ascription  to  His  human  nature  of  the  same  liability  to 
sinless  infirmity  as  that  under  which  ordinary  men  lie;  an- 
other, which  excludes  that  liability,  and  makes  all  Christ's 
pains  the  miraculous  effects  of  the  forthputting  at  Hir 
pleasure  of  His  divine  power.  To  make  this  distinction 
plain,  let  me  quote  and  comment  on  a  statement  of  opinion, 
on  the  point  in  hand,  by  an  orthodox  doctor  of  a  later  age, 
who  held  what  Hilary  is  supposed  to  have  intended  to 
teach,  and  who  brought  his  views  to  bear  against  the  prev- 
alent errors  of  the  Adoptianists.  Alcuin,  in  his  treatise 
against  Felix  of  Urgellis,  refuting  the  opinion  that  Christ 
was  by  natural  condition  a  servant,  says:  "  The  Catholic 
verity  confesses  that  Christ  had  all  the  infirmities  of  the 
flesh  which  He  assumed,  voluntarily,  when  He  wished:  a 
voluntary  and  true  hunger  when  He  came  hungering  to  the 
fig-tree;  a  voluntary  and  true  weariness  when  He  sat  down, 
fatigued  with  His  journey,  by  the  well;  a  voluntary  and 
true  wound,  when  He  was  pierced  in  the  side  by  the  soldier's 
spear;  a  voluntary  and  true  death,  when  with  bowed  head 
He  gave  up  the  ghost  upon  the  cross;  a  voluntary  and  true 
burial,  when  Joseph  and  Nicodemus  placed  Him,  taken 
down  from  the  cross,  in  the  sepulchre.  All  these  infirmi- 
ties of  the  flesh,  voluntary  indeed,  yet  true,  Christ  had,  be- 
cause He  took  the  nature  of  human  flesh,  not  in  phantasy, 
but  in  truth."  l     Take  now  one  of  these  infirmities,  say  the 

habeas  naturam  dolendi,  dum  et  ut  hominis  habitus  est,  et  origo  non  hominis  est, 
nato  eo  de  conceptione  Spiritus  sancti.  Hinc  itaque  aestimatus  est  et  in  doloribus, 
et  in  plaga  et  in  vexatione  esse.  Formam  enim  servi  accepit:  et  natus  ex  virgine 
homo  opinionem  nobis  naturalis  sibi  in  passione  doloris  invexit. 

1  Alcuini  Opera,  Adv.  Felicem,  lib.  vi.  cap.  iv.:  Catholica  Veritas  confitetur 
secundum  veram  substantiam  carnis,  omnes  ejusdem  carnis,  quas  suscepit,  infirmi- 
tates  voluntarias  habere  Christum,  cum  voluisset      Voluntariam  namque  et  veraro 


Christ  the  Subject  of   Temptation.  245 

weariness  by  the  well,  that  we  may  see  the  two  different 
senses  in  which  voluntariness  may  be  predicated  of  it.  We 
may  say  that  Christ  was  voluntarily  weary,  meaning-  that 
He  permitted — that  is,  abstained  from  using  divine  power 
to  prevent — the  heat  of  the  sun  and  the  long-  journey  on 
foot  to  have  their  natural  effect  on  a  physical  frame,  as 
liable  to  be  acted  on  by  these  causes  as  that  of  any  other 
man.  Voluntariness,  thus  understood,  is  perfectly  com- 
patible with  the  doctrine  that  Christ's  humanity  in  physical 
constitution  was  exactly  the  same  as  ours.  It  is  a  volun- 
tariness of  this  kind,  not  opposed  to,  but  in  harmony  with, 
a  reign  of  physical  law,  that  Cyril  teaches  when  he  says, 
with  reference  to  the  death  of  Christ:  "  Therefore  He  ap- 
peared in  our  nature,  and  made  His  own  body  subject  to 
corruption,  according  to  the  reasons  inherent  in  nature,  in 
order  that  He,  being  Himself  the  Life,  might  implant 
therein  the  good  which  belonged  to  Him — that  is,  life."1 
John  of  Damascus  means  the  same  thing  when  he  says  that 
"  our  infirmities  were  in  Christ,  both  according  to  nature 
and  above  nature.  According  to  nature,  because  He  al- 
lowed His  flesh  to  suffer  what  was  proper  to  it;  above 
nature,  because  in  the  Lord  the  physical  states  did  not  out- 
run His  will.  For  in  Him  nothing  compulsory  is  seen,  but 
all  is  voluntary.  Voluntarily  he  hungered,  voluntarily  He 
thirsted,  voluntarily  He  feared,  voluntarily  He  died."3 
This,  then,  is  the  one  sense  in  which  voluntariness  may  be 

famem,  cum  esuriens  ad  ficulneam  veniret;  voluntariam  et  veram  lassitudinem, 
cum  fatigatus  ab  itinere  super  puteum  sederet;  voluntarium  et  verum  vulnus,  cum 
militis  lancea  percuteretur  in  latere;  voluntariam  et  veram  mortem,  cum  inclinato 
capite  spiritum  emisisset  in  cruce;  voluntariam  et  veram  sepalturam,  cum  eum  de- 
positum  de  ligno  Joseph  et  Nicodemus  ponerent  in  sepulchro.  Has  enim  carnis 
omnes  infirmitates  voluntarias  quidem,  sed  veras  Christus  habuit,  quia  carnis  hu- 
manae  naturam,  non  in  phantasia,  sed  in  veritate  suscepit. 

1  Quod  unus  sit  Christus,  p.  1352:  'AW  fjv  ov\  kzepooi  zo  duziSii  tov 
Qavdzov  xaza6siedbai  xpdzoS,  nXrjv  on  did  ixovrjZ  rrji  kvavbpwitr)- 
6sg)S  zov  MovoyevovS-  zavzyzoi  niq)r]VE  xaS'  rjudi,  xai  i'Stov  titoip- 
6olzo  6oojna  to  vito  qfiopdv,  xazd  ye  zovS  kvovzai  zp  cpi)6ei  Xoyovi, 
'iv  kneiitep  kdriv  avzoS  p  Z,oor)  (yeyivvrjzai  yap  ex  ^oojji  zov  Ilazpoi) 
eucpvzevoy  zo  i'Siov  dyabdv  avzap,  zovze'6zi  zr)v  ^aot'/v. 

2  De  Fide  Orthodoxa,  lib.  iii.  c.  xx.:  'Aue'Xei  zd  cpv6ixa  r/uoov  Ttdbt]  xazd 
<pv6iv,  xai  vitep  cpv6iv  r/6av  kv  zoo  Xpi6zoo.  Kazd  q>v6iv  /.lev  yap 
exivelzo  kv  avzcp,  oze  napexcopei  zy  6apxi  naOelv  zd  i'Sia-  vizip 
<pv<5iv  Si,  ozi  ov  rtpotjyeizo  kv  zoo  Kvpiop  r?}$  eeX}?6ea)S  zd  <pv6ixct- 


246  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

predicated  of  Christ's  infirmities.  But  we  may  attach  an- 
other idea  to  the  word.  Reverting  to  the  infirmity  of 
weariness  by  the  well,  we  may  say  that  Jesus  was  volun- 
tarily weary,  meaning  that  He  brought  on  a  feeling  or  state 
of  weariness,  which  could  not  otherwise  have  been  pro- 
duced, by  a  deliberate  act  of  will,  having  some  particular 
end  in  view,  such  as,  that  He  might  have  an  excuse  for  en- 
tering into  conversation  with  the  woman  of  Samaria,  by 
asking  her  for  a  drink  of  water.  A  voluntariness  of  this 
sort  another  opponent  of  Adoptianism,  Paulinus  of  Aquileia, 
seems  to  have  believed  in,  when,  with  reference  to  our 
Lord's  soul-trouble  recorded  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  John's 
Gospel,  he  represented  Christ  as  troubling  Himself,  so 
taking  on  Himself  the  affection  of  human  infirmity,  by  a 
display  of  power  which  excluded  the  disgrace  of  real  fear; 
the  design  of  this  act  of  self-troubling,  and  of  the  prayer 
which  accompanied  it,  being  to  elicit  a  voice  from  heaven 
which  might  make  an  impression  on  the  surrounding  crowd.1 
Now  it  is  manifest  that  voluntariness,  taken  in  this  sense, 
is  not  compatible  with  a  reign  of  law  in  Christ's  body,  or 
with  the  reality  of  His  human  nature.  To  represent  Christ 
as  making  Himself  hungry,  or  thirsty,  or  weary,  or  sorrow- 
ful, is  to  give  His  whole  life  on  earth  a  doketic  aspect,  and 
to  degrade  it  into  a  theatric  spectacle  got  up  for  effect — 
for  the  sake  of  example,  or  of  doctrine,  or  to  beget  faith  in 
the  mystery  of  the  Incarnation,  or  for  all  these  together; 
a  view,  indeed,  which  the  author  last  named  does  not  hesi- 
tate plainly  to  avow.8  And  the  question  with  respect  to 
Hilary  is,  in  which  of  the  two  senses  are  we  to  understand 
him  as  ascribing  to  Christ  the  experience  of  real,  indeed, 
yet   always   voluntary  infirmity  ?     No  one  who  considers 

ovdiv  ydp  rjvayxa6nivoY  kit'  avtov  Oeaopeirai,  dXXd  ndvra  kxov- 
61a.  tyeXaov  ydp  l7tsivi/6e,  bsXoov  ediipr/Gs,  OiXosr  edsiXiade,  BeXoov 
dnir)av£v. 

1  Paulini  Opera,  Contra  Felicem  Urgellitanum,  lib.  i.  cap.  xxix.:  Proximus 
igitur  passioni,  suscipiens  in  se  humanae  infirmitatis  affectum  turbavit  semetipsum 
potestatis  utique  insignibus,  non  timoris,  ut  haeretici  garriunt,  dedecore. 

2  Contra  Felicem,  lib.  i.  cap.  xxix.:  Orabat  quasi  verus  homo  pro  hominibus, 
sed  potestatis  insigni,  non  necessitatis  dehonestate.  Omne  enim  quod  incarnata 
Dei  Patris  sapientia  virtusque  mirabiliter  in  locutione,  in  actione,  in  situ,  in  motu, 
'.n  sessione,  et  resurrectione,  ac  deambulatione  egit,  aut  exemplum,  aut  doctrina, 
aut  mysterium  fuit,  aut  utrumque  et  hoc  et  haec,  et  illud. 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  247 

the  stress  which  He  lays  on  the  miraculous  birth  as  giving 
to  our  Lord's  humanity  a  peculiar  physical  constitution, 
can  hesitate  as  to  the  answer.  In  the  view  of  this  Father, 
our  Lord's  infirmities,  if  real  at  all,  which  is  more  than 
doubtful,  were  necessarily  miraculous:  they  were  not  pro- 
duced by  reasons  inherent  in  His  human  nature,  but  by  His 
divine  will.  Whereas,  on  the  true  theory,  the  miracle 
would  have  lain  in  Christ's  not  feeling  weary  as  He  sat  by 
the  well,  after  His  long  journey  under  a  hot  sun;  on  Hilary's 
theory,  the  miracle  was  that  Christ  did  feel  weary,  the  sun 
and  the  journey  being  impotent  to  exhaust  His  frame,  born 
of  the  Virgin,  yet  divine  in  origin. 

Against  the  charge  of  doketism,  then,  this  distinguished 
Father  of  the  Western  Church  cannot  be  successfully  de- 
fended; and  instead  of  indulging  in  desperate  attempts  at 
apologising  for  his  errors,  we  shall  be  more  profitably- 
occupied  in  endeavouring  to  discover  how  such  a  mani 
could  be  led  to  take  up  so  false  a  position  on  so  vital  a  sub- 
ject. The  explanation  is  indeed  not  far  to  seek,  being  t<5 
be  found  in  a  law  of  controversy  whose  powerful  influence 
is  abundantly  illustrated  in  the  history  of  theological  war- 
fare,— that,  viz.,  according  to  which  every  controversialist 
tends  to  take  up  a  position  as  far  as  possible  removed 
from  that  of  his  opponent,  not  unfrequently  abandoning  to 
the  enemy  the  open  fields  of  common  truth,  and  shutting 
himself  up  within  the  narrow  citadel  of  orthodoxy.  Hilary 
was  the  defender  of  the  Nicene  faith  against  its  formidable 
foes,  the  Arians.  Now  one  way  by  which  the  Arians 
assailed  the  divinity  of  Christ  was,  by  pointing  to  His  ex- 
perience of  infirmity.  That  man  Jesus,  they  argued,  how- 
ever exalted,  cannot  be  divine,  for  God  is  impassible;  but 
behold,  that  man  suffered  fear,  sorrow,  and  pain.  To  which 
Hilary  replied  in  effect:  "  I  grant  that  God  is  impassible — 
that  fear,  sorrow,  and  pain  cannot  touch  Him.  But  what 
of  that  ?  Neither  did  Christ  suffer  any  of  these  things;  the 
statements  in  the  Gospels  which  seem  to  ascribe  infirmity 
to  Him  can  all  be  satisfactorily  explained."  And  so  he 
saved  Christ's  divinity  at  the  expense  of  His  humanity,  and 
in  giving  us  a  God  totus  in  suis,  robbed  us  of  a  Brother 
totus  in  nostris. 


248  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

The  foregoing  discussion  of  the  eccentric  views  enter- 
tained by  an  ancient  Church  Father  finds  its  chief  use,  and 
best  apology,  in  being  a  help  towards  realizing  the  impor- 
tance of  the  commonplace  category,  "  the  sinless  infirmi- 
ties," in  connection  with  Christ's  experience  of  temptation. 
For  every  one  sees  at  a  glance  what  a  different  complexion 
is  given  to  that  experience,  if  it  still  deserve  the  name,  on 
the  assumption  that  Hilary's  theory  is  true.  No  real  fear 
of  death,  giving  rise  to  earnest  desire  to  escape  it,  if 
possible,  only  an  acted  fear  for  our  sakes,  to  teach  us  not 
to  fear  in  a  similar  situation;  no  impassioned  prayer,  with 
strong  crying  and  tears,  for  His  own  deliverance,  but  only 
a  compliance  with  the  rule  of  prayer,  for  an  example  to 
Christians  placed  in  straits;  no  real  intense  mental  struggle 
or  agony,  as  of  one  obliged  to  choose  between  two  dread 
alternatives,  but  only  the  appearance  of  one,  assumed  and 
exhibited  for  the  benefit  of  spectators;  no  veritable  exhaus- 
tion, calling  for  angelic  succour,  but  only  a  permitting  of 
Himself  to  be  comforted  on  the  part  of  a  strong  One,  who 
had  no  need  of  celestial  help,  that  martyrs  and  confessors 
might  be  nerved  to  endurance  by  the  assurance  of  season- 
able aid;  the  bloody  sweat,  if  real,  no  result  of  mortal  weak- 
ness, but  miraculously  produced  for  the  sake  of  such  as 
should  be  called  to  suffer  martyrdom,  whether  by  con- 
secrating the  earth,  on  which  it  dropped,  to  be  their 
burying-place,  or  by  inspiring  them  with  the  hope  of  a 
better  resurrection.1     On  such  a   theory  there  is   no   life- 

1  The  above  may  seem  overdrawn,  but  it  is  in  truth  little  more  than  a  free  par- 
aphrase of  what  Paulinus  says  in  his  work,  Contra  Felicem,  lib.  iii.  c.  v.,  in  defence 
of  the  voluntariness  (in  the  illegitimate  sense)  of  Christ's  passion.  "  Quod  autem," 
he  remarks,  "  tristatur,  moeret,  pavet,  et  taedet,  et  humanae  apertius  demonstratur 
Veritas  carnis,  et  nostrae  per  id  praestatur  infirmitatis  quantocius  fortitude  Non 
enim  infirmari  coacte  potuit  inviolabilis  virtus,  nisi  in  quantum  praestabilius  volun- 
taria  potestate  illi  pro  nobis  placuit  infirmari."  Then  in  reference  to  prayer  this 
•doctrine  is  applied  thus:  "  Nam  et  orationis  regulam  tempore  passionis  ideo  talker 
informare  voluit  ut  membra  sua  .  .  .  inter  angustias  positi,  et  in  oratione  strenui, 
et  in  Dei  Voluntate  per  subjectionem  Concordes,  et  fortes  robore  in  agone  certa- 
tninis  permanerent."  Concerning  the  celestial  succour  it  is  said:  "  Hinc  est  quod 
idem  Redemptor  noster,  qui  nullo  modo  alieno  indigebat  auxilio,  in  ipso,  ut  ita 
„oquar.  traditionis  momento  factus  in  agonia  dum  prolixius  oraret,  angeios  se  pro 
•nostra  consolatione  permisit  confortare,  nulla  prorsus  exigente  causa  necessitatis, 
sed  ut  hoc  exemplo,"  etc.  etc.     On  the  subject  of  the  bloody  sweat,  Paulinus  in 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  249 

experience  of  temptation,  but  only  a  dramatic  spectacle, — a 
God  wearing  a  mask,  and  playing  the  part  of  a  tempted 
man.  On  the  other  hand,  grant  the  reality  of  infirmity, 
and  all  the  events  pass  from  the  region  of  fictitious  repre- 
sentation into  the  region  of  genuine  human  experience; 
Christ  becomes  the  tempted  man,  tempted  in  some  respects 
at  least  as  we  are,  tempted  both  positively  and  negatively, 
positively,  by  the  attractions  of  that  which  is  agreeable  to 
sense,  as  when  the  tempter  in  the  wilderness  set  before 
Him  the  pleasant  way  of  a  worldly  Messiahship;  negatively, 
by  the  repulsions  of  pain  impending  or  in  course  of  being 
endured,  as  when  Peter  thoughtlessly  performed  Satan's 
part,  and  said,  "  Save  Thyself;"  or  when  the  near  prospect 
of  the  passion  awoke  in  His  own  soul  the  wish,  "  Would 
that  this  cup  might  pass  !  " 

"  Tempted  in  some  respects  at  least,"  I  have  said.  But 
the  Scripture  says,  "  tempted  in  all  respects  as  we  are, 
without  sin."  The  question  therefore  arises:  Does  the 
category  of  sinless  infirmities  afford  a  basis  for  a  catholic 
experience  of  temptation;  and  if  not,  is  there  some  other 
condition  of  the  possibility  of  temptation  to  be  taken  into 
account,  which  has  hitherto  been  overlooked  ?  Now  there 
have  not  been  wanting  men,  at  various  periods  in  the 
Church's  history,  who  have  answered  the  former  part  of 
this  question  in  the  negative,  and  have  deemed  it  necessary, 
in  order  to  give  fulness  to  Christ's  experience  as  the 
tempted,  to  ascribe  to  Him  not  merely  sinless  physical  or 
psychical  infirmity,  but  participation  in  a  morally  vitiated 
human  nature,  without  prejudice  to  His  actual  sinlessness. 
This  view  seems  to  have  been  first  distinctly  enunciated  at 
the  close  of  the  eighth  century  by  the  Adoptianists,  and 
particularly  by  Felix  of  Urgellis.  It  is  not  difficult  to  see 
how  the  advocates  of  the  Adoptian  theory  of  Christ's  person 
might   be   led  into   such  a  line  of  thought.     Their  great 

dulges  in  vapid  rhetoric  to  which  I  am  unable  to  attach  any  distinct  meaning. 
His  words  are:  "Unde  et  pro  sudoris  rore  de  corpore  unici  ejusdemque  nostri 
consolatoris  guttas  sanguinis,  quod  certum  est  humanae  omnino  non  esse  naturae 
sudare,  non  frustratorie  ab  evangelista  refertur  in  terram  usque  distillasse:  quatenus 
per  terram,  in  quam  defluxerat,  terrena  beatorum  martyrum  depromeret  membra, 
et  purpureae  guttulae  punicum  distillantis  rorem  roseo  Christi  sanguine  eadem 
sanctorum  martyrum  purpurata  depingeret  membra." 


2  5o  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

concern  was  to  vindicate  the  reality  and  completeness  of 
our  Lord's  humanity,  which  appeared  to  them  to  be  over- 
looked or  thrown  into  the  background,  in  the  prevalent  form 
of  Christological  doctrine;  an  impression  certainly  not 
without  foundation,  if  their  orthodox  opponents,  Alcuin  and 
Paulinus,  may  be  taken  as  fair  samples  of  contemporary 
opinion  on  such  subjects.  Felix  and  others  like-minded 
said:  Jesus  Christ  is  a  man,  our  Brother.  As  a  man,  He  is 
the  Son  of  God  by  adoption,  even  as  we  Christians  are;  and 
He  is  God  by  name  (nuncupative),  in  virtue  of  His  connec- 
tion with  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  who  in  Him 
became  incarnate.  Having  taken  up  this  fundamental 
position,  they  of  course  laid  hold  of  everything  in  the 
Scripture  bearing  on  the  homoiisia  of  Christ's  humanity  with 
ours  as  an  argument  in  favour  of  their  theory.  They 
emphasized  the  facts  that  Christ  was  the  subject  of  pre- 
destination and  election,  and  the  recipient  of  grace;  they 
took  in  earnest  all  that  is  said  of  Christ  employing  the  pres- 
ence of  infirmity  or  sinless  imperfection,  His  ignorance, 
His  refusal  of  the  title  "  good  "  in  the  absolute  sense,  His 
tears,  His  agony,  His  prayers,  not  merely  for  others,  but 
bond  fide  for  Himself.  They  did  this;  and  they  did  more: 
after  the  fashion  of  controversialists,  they  exaggerated  some 
Scripture  statements  and  misinterpreted  others,  in  their 
eagerness  to  fortify  their  position;  and  so  with  much  that 
was  true  and  that  needed  to  be  said,  they  mingled  not  a 
little  that  was  false  and  fitted  to  create  a  wholesale  prejudice 
against  everything  advanced  by  them  in  support  of  their 
cause.  They  held  that  Christ  was  not  only  a  servant,  but 
a  servant  by  natural  condition  and  necessity,  born  into  a 
servile  state  of  a  servile  mother;1  that  He  was  baptized 
because  He  needed  baptism,  and  in  His  baptism  underwent 
regeneration;2  that  by  His  birth  He  was  partaker  of  the 

1  Servus  conditionalis,  ex  ancilla  natus.  Vid.  Alcuin,  Adv.  Felicem,  lib.  iii.  c. 
lii.,  lib.  iv.  c.  ix.  Alcuin  quotes  Felix,  asking:  Quid  potuit  de  ancilla  nasci,  nis 
servus?     Vid.  lib.  vi.  c.  ii. 

2  Alcuin,  Adv.  Felicem,  lib.  ii.  c.  xvi. :  Has  geminas  generationes:  primam  vide 
licet  quae  secundum  carnem  est;  secundam  vero  spiritalem,  quae  per  adoptionera 
fit;  idem  Redemptor  noster  secundum  hominem  complexus  in  semetipso  contineti 
primam  videlicet,  quam  suscepit  ex  Virgine  nascendo:  secundam  vero  quam  initi- 
avit  in  lavacro  a  mortuis  resurgendo.     Felix  draws  a  parallel  between  Christ  and 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  25 1 

old  man,1  belonged  to  the  mass  of  perdition,  was  subject  to 
the  law  of  sin,  and  therefore  to  the  curse  of  sin — death. 
Joshua,  clothed  with  filthy  garments,  having  Satan  at  his 
right  hand  to  resist  him,  and  plucked  by  Jehovah  as  a  brand 
from  the  burning,  was  Jesus  sordid  with  the  sinful  flesh  He 
had  assumed,  clad  in  the  tattered  and  torn  garments  of  the 
human  race,  until  the  shuttle  of  the  cross  wove  for  Him  a 
tunic  of  innocence,  wearing  a  body  half-burned  by  the 
transgression  of  His  first  parents  and  by  the  flame  of  their 
crimes,  which,  however,  He  was  able  by  His  virtue  to  rescue 
from  being  utterly  consumed  in  the  fire  of  hell.2 

Views  similar  to  these  have  been  propounded  in  the 
present  century  both  in  Germany  and  in  England;  in  the 
former  country  by  Gottfried  Menken  of  Bremen,  in  the 
latter  by  the  better  known  Edward  Irving.  Menken  seems 
to  have  been  influenced  both  by  theological  bias,  and  by  a 
practical  religious  interest  in  the  doctrine  of  our  Lord's 
humanity.  In  a  homily  on  the  text:  "  Who  by  the  eternal 
Spirit  offered  Himself  without  spot  to  God,"*  wherein  he 
states  his  views  on  the  question  at  issue,  he  makes  the 
prefatory  observation  that  theologians  had  been  so  much 
occupied  in  defending  Christ's  divinity  against  assailants, 
that  Christians  had  not  sufficiently  contemplated  Him  as 
the  Son  of  Man;  and  hence  the  testimonies  of  the  Scriptures 

Christians,  and  makes  Him  like  them  partake  of  two  generations,  one  natural,  the 
other  spiritual  begun  in  His  baptism,  completed  in  His  resurrection. 

1  Alcuin,  Adv.  Elipandum,  lib.  i.  c.  xvi.  Alcuin  sums  up  the  doctrine  of  Eli- 
pandus  thus:  Asserens  Christum  et  veterem  hominem  esse,  et  nuncupativum  Deum, 
et  adoptivum  filium,  et  secunda  indiguisse  regeneratione  et  alia  plurima  ecclesias- 
ticae  doctrinae  inconvenientia. 

2  Alcuin,  Adv.  Felicem,  lib.  vii.  c.  viii. :  Et  Jesus  erat  indutus  vestimentis  soi- 
tiidis,  utique  ex  transgressione  de  carne  peccati  sordidus,  quam  induere  dignatus 
est:  unde  et  pannis  involutus,  et  scissuras  humani  generis,  dum  in  se  ilia  suscepit, 
tnspicitur;  donee  radio  crucis,  innocentiae  tunica  texeretur.  Nonne  inquit,  hie  titio 
extractus  ab  igne  est  ?  Titio  extractus  ab  igne  semiustula^us,  non  percombustus 
esse  ostenditur.  Corpus  enim  illud  humani  generis,  quod  ex  protoplastorum  trans- 
gressione et  criminum  flamma  fuerat  adustum,  hoc  induit  Dominus.  et  quasi  titi- 
onem  semiustufatum  a  gehennae  incendio  liberavit.  Alcuin  represents  Felix  as 
fathering  this  interpretation  on  Jerome;  but  he  calls  in  question  the  accuracy  ot 
the  statement. 

3  Homilien  iiber  das  netmte  und  zehnte  Capitel  des  Brief  es  an  die  Hebraer  nebsl 
tinem  Anhang  etlicher  Homilien  ubtr  Stellen  des  zwtflften  Capitels,  Bremen  183 1. 
The  homily  referred  to  in  the  text  is  the  sixth. 


252  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

to  the  true  and  full  humanity  of  the  Son  of  God  had  not 
been  duly  considered,  and  were  among  the  things  least 
known  and  understood.  By  way  of  doing  justice  to 
the  neglected  doctrine,  he  maintains  that  Christ,  when 
He  came  into  the  world,  took  not  human  nature  as  it  came 
from  the  hand  of  God  before  the  fall,  before  it  became  sin- 
ful and  mortal  in  Adam  through  his  disobedience.  He 
took  a  mortal  body,  a  body  of  flesh  which  might  be  called 
a  body  of  sin:  a  body,  at  least,  in  which  sin,  suffering,  and 
death  were  possible,  and  whose  natural  inevitable  doom  it 
was  to  die.  Had  He  not  assumed  such  a  body,  He  would 
not  have  been  a  real  member  of  the  human  race,  a  true 
Adamite.  For  sinfulness  of  nature  and  mortality  belong, 
of  necessity,  to  the  essence  of  natural  earthly  humanity.  A 
being  free  from  the  taint  of  original  sin,  and  immortal,  does 
not  belong  to  that  humanity,  is  no  true  full  son  of  Adam 
and  son  of  man;  and  of  him  can  never  be  said  that  he  was 
made  in  all  things  like  his  brethren  the  Adamites,  the  sin- 
ful mortal  sons  of  Adam.1  Therefore  it  is  explicitly  as- 
serted by  this  author,  that  Christ,  the  sinless  One,  in  His 
humanity  partook  not  merely  of  the  mortality,  but  of  the 
sinfulness  of  human  nature.  Those  who  are  familiar  with 
the  concatenations  of  thought  characteristic  of  this  school, 
will  know  beforehand  what  sort  of  doctrine  to  expect  from 
such  a  quarter,  on  the  subject  of  Christ's  redeeming  work. 
Christ's  vocation  as  Redeemer  was  to  make  the  whole 
lump  of  fallen  humanity  holy,  by  sanctifying  the  portion 
thereof   He  had   assumed  into   connection   with    Himself, 

1  Stindlichkeit  und  Sterblichkeit  gehoren  nothwendig  zu  dem  Wesen  der  nattlr- 
lichen  irdischen  Menschheit,  zu  dem  Eigenthttmlichen  der  Adamsfamilie.  Ein 
Unstindlicher,  und  ein  Unsterblicher  gehort  der  nattirlichen  irdischen  Menschheit 
nicht  an;  ein  Unstindlicher  und  Unsterblicher  ist  kein  natlirlicher  und  wahrer 
Adamide,  kein  wahrhaftiger  und  volliger  Adams-  und  Menschensohn.  Von  einem 
Unstindlichen  und  Unsterblichen  kann  auch  nimmer  mit  Wahrheit  gesagt  vverden, 
er  sei  den  Adamiden,  den  stindlichen  und  sterblichen  Adamskindern  als  seinem 
Brtidern  IN  Allem  gleich  geworden,  theilhaftig  ihres  Fleisches  und  Blules. — 
Ibid.  p.  103.  Unsundlichkeit  in  this  extract  evidently  signifies  freedom  from  cor- 
ruption of  nature  or  original  sin,  which,  according  to  Ullmann,  Die  Sundlosigkeit 
Jesu,  p.  25,  is  the  strict  meaning  of  the  word,  as  distinct  from  Sundlosigkeit,  which 
signifies  freedom  from  actual  sins.  Menken  ascribes  to  Christ  Sundlosigkeit,  but 
not  Unsimdlichkeit.  He  says,  ibid.  p.  105:  Er  hat  die  Stindlichkeit  der  mensch- 
jchen  Natur,  und  das  est  noch  keine  wirklichke  Stinde. 


Qirist  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  253 

which  He  did  partly  by  living  in  His  fallen  flesh  a  perfectly 
holy  life,  partly  by  dying  on  the  cross,  as  a  sin-offering, 
offering  up  Himself  without  spot  to  God,  and  just  on  that 
account  being  a  sin-offering;  for  His  spotlessness  meant 
that  sin  had  been  destroyed,  and  it  was  the  peculiarity  of 
the  sin-offering,  that  in  it  the  victim  was  totally  consumed. 
Only  by  this  theory,  it  is  held,  is  justice  done  to  Scripture 
statements,  such  as,  "  He  hath  made  Him  to  be  sin  for 
us;"  and,  "  God  sent  His  Son  in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh, 
as  a  sin-offering,  and  destroyed  sin  in  the  flesh."  Some- 
thing more  is  meant  by  such  expressions  than  the  shallow, 
pitiful  idea  that  Christ  died  for  men;  an  idea  hardly  worth 
the  trouble  of  understanding  it:  unworthy  of  the  long  pre- 
paration which  had  been  made  for  Christ's  coming,  dis- 
honouring to  mankind,  as  if,  forsooth,  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
were  the  only  one  sufficiently  inspired  by  the  heroism  of 
love  to  be  willing  to  lay  down  His  life  for  His  brethren; 
not  to  say  dishonouring  to  God,  by  placing  the  acceptable 
element  of  Christ's  sacrifice  in  the  mere  fact  of  death.  No, 
something  far  deeper,  far  more  thorough,  is  signified  by 
these  Scripture  oracles;  even  that  Christ  was  made  sin  by 
taking  sinful  flesh;  that  He  offered  Himself  without  spot, 
by  fighting  a  successful  battle  with  sin;  that  He  became 
the  atoning  sin-offering  of  the  world,  because  in  His  own 
person  He  offered  up  and  annihilated  the  sinfulness  of 
human  nature,  made  this  nature  in  His  person  sinless, 
exhibited  it  in  His  person  sinless,  to  God,  angels,  and 
devils,  even  as,  when  He  re-entered  heaven,  He  exhibited 
it  immortal.1 

These  opinions,  promulgated  from  a  German  pulpit  some 
fifty  years  ago,  so  closely  resemble  those  uttered  about  the 
same  time  in  the  ears  of  a  London  audience  by  an  eloquent 

1  Er  ist  also  zur  Stlnde  gemacht,  da  er  den  schmahlichen  Leib  des  Fleisches 
anzog,  da  er  die  verachtetste  aller  Geistergestalten,  die  Gestalt  des  stindlichen 
Fleisches,  annahm.  Er  hat  sich  selbst  geopfert,  da  er  durch  fortgesetzte  Ueber- 
windung  und  Aufopferung  diese  Gestalt  in  sich  vernichtete.  Er  ist  das  versohn- 
ende  Siindopfer  der  Welt  geworden,  da  er  in  seiner  Person  die  Sundlichkeit  der 
Menschennatur  aufopferte  und  vernichtete,  diese  Natur  in  seiner  Person  unstindlich 
machte,  die  sUndliche  Menschennatur  in  seiner  Person  Gott  und  Engeln  und  Teu- 
feln  unstindlich  dastellte,  wie  er  sie  hernach,  als  er  in  die  Himmel  einging,  aucb 
unsterblich  dargestellet  hat. — Ibid.  p.  105. 


254  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

but  erratic  Scotch  preacher,  that  further  exposition  of  the 
theory  held  in  common  by  both  is  quite  unnecessary.  Irv- 
ing differs  from  Menken  only  by  greater  elaboration  and 
fuller  detail,  by  the  rhetorical  extravagance  of  many  of  his 
statements,  and  by  the  confident  assertion  of  his  orthodoxy, 
in  utter  ignorance  of  the  historical  affinities  of  his  system, 
which  the  better  informed  German  theologian  knew  to  be  a 
comparative,  though,  as  he  deemed,  justifiable  novelty.  The 
British  divine  seems  to  have  been  influenced,  not  less  than 
the  Continental  one,  by  theological  bias.  Besides  intense  and 
most  praiseworthy  zeal  in  behalf  of  the  reality  of  our  Lord's 
humanity,  there  was  at  work  in  Irving's  mind,  as  his  trea- 
tise on  the  Incarnation  plainly  shows,  a  feeling  of  deep  dis- 
satisfaction with  the  current  doctrine  of  atonement,  which 
he  bitterly  and  contemptuously  nicknamed  the  "  bargain 
and  barter  hypothesis."1  Accordingly  he  too,  like  Men- 
ken, adopted,  and  with  far  more  vehemence  advocated, 
what  may  be  called  the  theory  of  REDEMPTION  BY  SAM- 
PLE;3 that  is  to  say,  that  Christ  took  sinful  human  nature 
into  connection  with  His  own  person;  battled  heroically 
through  life  with  the  temptations  springing  out  of  that 
"fragment  of  the  perilous  stuff"  He  had  assumed,  that 
flesh  of  His  wherein  "  all  infirmities,  sin,  and  guilt  of  all 
flesh  was  gathered  into  one  " — in  which  all  "  sins,  infirmi- 
ties, and  diseases"  "nestled;"  suffered  death  on  the  cross 
as  the  doom  due  to  Him  as  in  His  human  nature  a  "  fall- 
en," though  personally  a  sinless  man;  yea,  suffered  the 
extremity  of  that  divine  wrath  to  which  sinful  flesh  and 
blood  is  obnoxious;  and  after  death  descended  in  His  soul 
into  hell,  there  to  endure  a  most  fearful  conflict;  and  so 
having  maintained  His  personal  sinlessness,  and  endured 
to  the  uttermost  the  penalty  due  to  His  sinful  human 
nature,  accomplished  the  reconciliation  or  atonement  of 

1    The  Doctrine  of  the  Incarnation  Opened,  vol.  v.  of  Collected  Writings,  p.  146. 

5  This  theory,  or  hints  of  it,  can  be  found  in  the  writings  of  the  early  Fathers; 
vid.  Lecture  ii.  of  this  course.  But  the  theory  in  the  hands  of  the  Fathers  did 
not  mean  that  Christ  took  a  portion  of  sinful  humanity  and  made  it  holy,  and 
through  it  sanctified  the  whole  lump;  but  only  that  He  took  a  portion  of  humanity 
in  a  sinless  state,  and  kept  it  sinless  through  a  life  of  temptation,  and  presented  it 
to  His  Father  as  the  first-fruits  of  a  renewed  humanity.  Vid.  for  a  fuller  exposition 
of  this  theory,  next  Lecture. 


Christ  tne  Subject  of  Temptation.  255 

God  and  man  in  His  own  person;  what  was  done  in  one 
portion,  in  the  sample,  being  "virtually  accomplished  in 
the  whole." 

Addressing  ourselves  now  to  the  question,  what  is  the 
worth  of  this  theory  of  our  Lord's  humanity,  held  by  the 
Adoptianists  in  the  eighth  century,  and  revived  by  Menken 
and  Irving  in  the  nineteenth,  one  remark  occurs  at  the  out- 
set, viz.,  that  the  theory  wears  on  its  face  as  much  the  look 
of  an  extreme,  as  the  very  different  one  propounded  by 
Hilary.  Prima  facie,  one  is  disposed  to  pronounce,  that  if 
Hilary  made  too  much  of  the  miraculous  conception,  the 
present  theory  errs  as  far  in  the  opposite  direction,  of  mak- 
ing too  little  of  it.  One  is  at  a  loss  to  see  why,  under  this 
theory,  Jesus  should  not  have  descended  from  Adam  by 
ordinary  generation,  as  He  could  not  have  been  made  more 
of  a  partaker  in  the  sinfulness  of  the  human  nature  by  that 
method  of  birth  than  He  actually  was:  not  to  mention  that 
even  if  the  opposite  were  true,  that  ought  not,  in  the  the- 
ory, to  be  an  objection  to,  but  rather  a  recommendation  of, 
the  method  of  ordinary  generation,  inasmuch  as  the  very 
raison  d'  etre  of  the  theory  is  to  make  Christ  in  His  human- 
ity in  all  things  like  His  brethren.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that 
Irving  speaks  of  the  manner  of  Christ's  conception  as  hav- 
ing the  effect  of  taking  away  original  sin.1  But  this  is  sim- 
ply a  quibble;  for  he  explains  his  meaning  by  remarking 
that  Christ  was  not  a  human  person,  never  had  personal 
subsistence  as  a  mere  man.  Beyond  a  doubt,  the  theory 
requires  that  original  sin  should  be  ascribed  to  Christ;  for 
original  sin  is  a  vice  of  fallen  human  nature;  and  the  doc- 
trine that  our  Lord's  human  nature  was  fallen,  means,  if  it 
means  anything,  that  it  was  tainted  with  original  sin. 
And  in  this  taint  not  merely  the  body  but  the  soul  of  Jesus 
must  be  held  to  have  participated;  for  whatever  theory  may 
be  held  as  to  the  origin  of  souls,  whether  the  traducian  or 
the  creatian,  it  is  certain  that  the  soul,  in  becoming  wedded 
to  the  body,  shares  its  mortal  state.  That  Irving  was  aware 
of  what  the  consequence  of  his  theory  required  at  this  point, 
is  manifest  from  his  using  the  following  argument  against  the 
opinion  that  Christ's  soul  was  pre-existent:  "  Moreover, 
1  Incarnation  Opened,  p.  159. 


2  56  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

then,  creation  hath  not  fallen  wholly,  for  this  pre-existent 
soul  hath  never  found  a  fall;  and,  being  united  with  the 
body  of  Christ,  is  still  the  creature  in  the  unfallen  state; 
and  so  the  better  half  of  the  man  Christ  is  unfallen,  and 
and  the  other  half  of  Him  is  fallen.  Strange  conjunction, 
and  heterogeneous  mixture!"1  So  that  the  influence  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  did  not  avail  to  keep  even  the  soul  of  Jesus 
untainted  by  the  fall,  not  to  speak  of  His  body  ! 

Another  thing  very  forcibly  strikes  the  mind  of  one  who 
has  perused  the  literature  of  this  theory,  viz.,  the  rhetor- 
ical inexactitude,  and  absence  of  carefully  discriminated 
thought,  characteristic  of  its  advocates.*  This  feature  is 
particularly  noticeable  in  Irving.  For  example,  he  asserts, 
over  and  over  again,  that  Christ's  flesh  was  mortal  and 
corruptible,  without  ever  asking  or  deliberately  considering 
whether  these  terms  might  not  bear  more  than  one  mean- 
ing, but  habitually  using  them  as  an  equivalent  for  "  fallen." 
And  yet  he  himself  uses  at  least  one  of  the  two  words  in 
two  distinct  senses.  In  many  places  he  employs  the  word 
"  mortal  "  in  accordance  with  the  requirement  of  his  theory, 
as  meaning,  doomed  of  necessity  to  endure  death,  the  curse 
of  sin.  Yet  in  one  place  he  speaks  of  death,  in  relation  to 
Christ,  as  a  thing  "  which  He  was  capable  of  as  being  in 
the  fallen  state,  though  not  obliged  to  it  as  perfectly 
holy."  *  Mortal,  i.  e.,  signifies  capable  of  dying,  and  this 
is  held  to  be  a  distinctive  attribute  of  the  fallen  state  ! 
Another  example  of  inexact  thinking  may  be  found  in  the 
manner  in  which  Irving  slumps  together  sin,  guilt,  disease, 
infirmity.4  Like  Hilary,  he  makes  no  distinction  between 
sinless  infirmities  and  vitia;  extremes  meeting  here,  only 
to  opposite  intents,  the  ancient  Father  denying  to  Christ 
all  share  in  infirmity  to  save  Him  from  vitium,  the  modern 
orator  ascribing  to  Him  a  share  in  the  vice  of  our  nature, 

1  Incarnation  Opened,  p.  121. 

2  Ullmann,  Die  Siindlosigkeit  Jesu,  p.  1 19,  characterizes  the  advocates  of  this 
theory  as  meist  schwtirmerische  Leute  (enthusiasts).  He  refers  to  several  authors 
whose  works  I  have  not  seen,  viz.,  Dippel,  Eschrich,  Fend,  and  Peter  Poiret.  Oi 
Menken  he  does  not  speak,  but  the  name  of  Irving  is  alluded  to. 

3  Incarnation  Opened,  p.   188. 

*  Ibid.  pp.  174,  320:  "  All  infirmity,  sin,  and  guilt  gathered  into  one."  "  A1J 
sins,  infirmities,  and  diseases  nestled  in  it." 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  i5j 

because  He  unquestionably  partook  of  our  infirmities.     Yet 
another  instance  of  rhetorical  inaccuracy,  where  carefully 
discriminated  thought  was  specially  called  for,  is  afforded 
in  the  loose  way  in  which  Irving  handles  the  subject  of 
temptation.     He  makes  no  attempt  to  ascertain  the  con- 
ditions under  which,  and  the  extent  to  which,  temptation 
is  possible  to  a  holy  being  living  a  human  life  in  this  world 
in  a  sentient  but  sinless  nature;  but  seems  to  assume  that 
temptation  can  be  a  reality  only  when  it  proceeds,  as  it 
often  does  in  us,  from  evil  lusts  originating  in  a  vice  of  dis- 
position.    Thus  he  says  in  one  place:  "  I  believe  it  to  be 
necessary  unto  salvation  that  a  man  should  believe  that 
Christ's  soul  was  so  held  in  possession  by  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and   so  supported  by  the  divine  nature,  as  that  it  never 
assented  unto  an  evil  suggestion,  and  never  originated  an 
evil  suggestion;  while,  upon  the  other  hand,  His  flesh  was 
of  that  mortal  and  corruptible  kind  which  is  liable  to  all 
forms  of  evil  suggestion  and  temptation,  through  its  par- 
ticipation in  a  fallen  nature  and  a  fallen  world;  and  that 
thus,  though  at  all  points  assailable  through  His  flesh,  He 
was  in  all  respects  holy;  seeing  wickedness  consisteth  not 
in  being  tempted,  but  in  yielding  to  the  temptation.     This, 
I  say,  I  consider  to  be  an  article  of  faith  necessary  to  salva- 
tion; and  the  opposite  of  it,  which  holdeth  that  His  flesh 
was  unfallen,  and  not  liable  to  all  temptation  by  sin,  nor 
conscious  to  it,  I  hold  to  be  a  virtual  denial  of  His  hu- 
manity." l     The  assumption  here  is,  that  unfallen  flesh  is 
not  liable  to  temptation;  yet  such  liability  is  held  to  be 
essential  to  the  truth  of  humanity,  whence  it  follows  that 
Adam  was  either  not  a  veritable  man  before  the  fall,  or 
that,  unfallen  though  he  was,  he  was  nevertheless  liable  to 
all  temptation  by  sin.     In  another  place  our  author  trium- 
phantly asks:   "  Doth  any  one  doubt  that  there  was  in  the 
flesh   of  Christ   a   repugnancy   to   suffer,   a   liability   to   be 
tempted  in  all  things  as  we  are  tempted,  and  which  was 
only  prevented  from  falling  before  temptation  by  the  faith 
of  His  Father's  promises,  and  by  the  upholding  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  ?     Then  I  ask  that  man,  What  is  Christ  ? — a  man  ? 
No;  for  even  unfallen  manhood  was  disposed  to  fall  into 

1  Incarnation  Opetied,  p.  126. 


2  58  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

sin.  A  fallen  man  ?  No;  for  fallen  manhood  doth  nothing 
but  sin.  A  creature  ?  No;  for  defectibility  is  the  very 
thing  which  distinguished  creature  from  Creator."  l  Here 
we  observe  the  confusion,  before  noticed,  of  sinless  infirmity 
with  a  morally  vitiated  condition,  a  repugnancy  to  suffer 
being  cited  as  evidence  that  Christ's  human  nature  was 
fallen;  and  the  consequent  neglect  to  inquire  how  far  sin- 
less infirmity  goes  in  accounting  for  "the  liability  to  be 
tempted  in  all  things  as  we  are,"  which  it  is  coolly  assumed 
all  opponents  of  the  theory  advocated  must  in  consistency 
deny. 

From  the  foregoing  remarks  it  is  manifest  that  there  are 
certain  questions  bearing  on  the  relation  of  our  Lord's  hu- 
manity to  the  fall,  which  require  much  more  careful  hand- 
ling than  they  have  received  from  the  parties  just  adverted 
to,  in  order  to  an  intelligent  and  sound  decision  of  the  im- 
portant issue  which  their  speculations  raised.  These 
questions  may  be  stated  in  this  way.  Assuming  that  the 
human  nature  of  Christ  was  unfallen,  untainted  by  the 
corruption  which  is  commonly  called  original  sin,  how  does 
it  stand  related  to  the  things  which  we  are  accustomed  to 
regard  as  the  effects  and  penalty  of  sin,  such  as  disease  and 
death  ?  and  further,  on  the  same  assumption,  what  limita- 
tions result,  in  Christ's  experience  of  temptation  ? — the 
topic  in  which  we  are  at  present  specially  interested. 

As  to  the  former  of  these  two  questions,  it  is  by  no  means 
an  easy  one  to  answer  properly,  as  the  history  of  its  treat- 
ment shows.  It  formed  one  of  the  subjects  of  controversy 
between  the  different  sects  of  the  Monophysites  in  the  sixth 
century;  one  party,  the  followers  of  Severus,  Monophysite 
Bishop  of  Antioch,  named  Theodosians,  and  on  account  of 
their  tenets  nicknamed  by  their  opponents  PhtJiartolatrists, 
maintaining  that  Christ's  body  before  the  resurrection  was 
mortal  and  corruptible;  another  party,  the  followers  of 
Julian,  Bishop  of  Halicarnassus,  named  Gajanites,  and  by 
their  opponents  nicknamed  Apthartodoketists,  maintaining, 
on  the  contrary,  that  Christ's  body  before,  as  after  the 
resurrection,  was  in  itself  incorruptible  and  immortal,  endur- 
ing hunger,  pain,  death,  only  by  an  act  of  will  and  by  way 

1  Incarnation  Opened^  p.  170. 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  2  59 

of  economy,  all  sufferings  and  wants  being  foreign  to  His 
human  nature,  as  indeed  they  were  to  man  before  the  fall. 
The  Emperor  Justinian  espoused  the  cause  of  the  latter 
party,  and  endeavoured  to  get  their  view  recognised  by  the 
Church  as  orthodox;  but  in  this  he  failed,  and  the  disputed 
question  was  allowed  to  remain  undecided,  the  feeling 
probably  being,  that  there  was  something  to  be  said  for 
both  sides.  Coming  down  to  our  own  times,  we  find  that 
something  is  said  on  both  sides,  by  different  men  at  one  in 
regard  to  our  fundamental  assumption,  and  even  by  the 
same  men.  Thus,  for  example,  an  orthodox  German  com- 
mentator on  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  Riehm,  in  reference 
to  the  statement  that  Christ  took  flesh  and  blood  in  the 
same  manner  as  we  possess  it,  remarks:  "  It  would  be  quite 
contrary  to  the  sense  of  the  writer  to  say  that  Christ  took 
human  nature  as  it  was  before  the  fall,  in  its  original  power 
and  completeness.  The  children  are  such  as  need  to  be 
sanctified,  and  their  flesh  and  blood,  in  which  Christ  took 
part  likewise,  is  the  human  corporeal  nature  as  weakened 
through  the  curse  of  sin,  receptive  to  all  outward  impres- 
sions tending  to  tempt  or  to  cause  pain,  and  liable  to  death."1 
Yet  this  same  writer,  expounding  the  doctrine  laid  down  in 
the  fourth  chapter  of  the  Epistle,  concerning  Christ's  ex- 
perience of  temptation,  with  express  reference  to  Menken's 
views,  recognises  in  the  qualifying  clause,  x<*pti  duaprias, 
a  double  limit  to  that  experience,  and  understands  it  as  not 
only  excluding  a  sinful  issue  in  connection  with  all  temp- 
tations whatsoever,  but  as  exempting  from  a  certain  class 
of  temptations,  those,  viz.,  whose  source  is  tdia.  tmbvjuia, 
there  being  in  Christ  no  inborn  sinful  desire,  no  natural  in- 
clination to  sin;  His  human  nature,  on  the  contrary,  being 
perfectly  free  from  sinful  bias  and  evil  lust.2  Another 
better  known  German  theologian,  Ebrard,  on  the  other 
hand,  teaches  that  the  status  humilis,  assumed  by  Christ 
in  becoming  man,  consisted  in  a  return  to  the  condition  of 
Adam  before  the  fall;  and  yet  with  this  doctrine  in  full 
view,  he  also  maintains  that  Christ  assumed  humanity  as  it 

1  Der  Lehrbegriff  des  Hebrikrbriefes  dargestellt,  und  mit  verwandten  I^ehrbe. 
griff  en  verglichen,  1 868;  vid.  p.  314. 

2  Ibid.  p.  322. 


z6o  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

stood  under  the  consequences  of  sin,  that  being,  in  his 
opinion,  the  very  import  of  the  phrase,  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Philippians,  uop<p?}v  SovXov  Aa/ioaV.1  Here  we  have  not 
only  two  doctors  agreed  on  the  main  point  differing  from 
each  other,  but  one  of  them,  in  appearance  at  least,  contra- 
dicting himself. 

This  perplexing  diversity,  or  seeming  oscillation  of  opin- 
ion, is  accounted  for  partly  by  the  fact  that  the  fallen  and 
the  unfallen  states,  physically  considered,  are  not  in  all  re- 
spects diverse,  and  partly  by  variation  of  the  point  of  view 
from  which  the  Incarnation  and  its  design  are  regarded. 
As  to  the  former,  the  state  of  Adam  unfallen  was  one  inter- 
mediate between  inevitable  subjection  to  death  and  abso- 
lute immunity  from  death.  His  body  was  mortal,  in  the 
sense  in  which  every  material  organism  must  be  mortal, 
that  is  not  yet  glorified  or  spiritualized,  but  dependent  on 
outward  nature,  and  standing  in  need  of  food,  drink,  sleep, 
and  breath.  Had  he  stood  in  his  integrity,  there  is  reason 
to  believe  that  he  would  have  passed  from  a  corruptible  to 
an  incorruptible  state,  without  tasting  of  death.  On  the 
other  hand,  when  he  fell,  what  had  before  been  but  a  pos- 
sibility was  converted  into  a  doom:  he  was  left  to  the  oper- 
ation of  natural  laws  which  would  not  fail  in  due  time  to 
bring  about  decay  and  dissolution,  if  disease  did  not  inter- 
vene to  produce  the  result  sooner.  Mortal  before,  in  the 
sense  of  possessing  a  body  de  facto  capable  of  dying,  and 
physically  liable  to  the  chance  of  death;  he  was  mortal  now, 
in  the  sense  that  he  was,  for  his  sin,  deprived  of  the  privi- 
lege of  being  raised  above  that  capacity  or  liability,  and 
doomed  to  remain  on  the  level  at  which  his  trial  found 
him,  till  the  actual  experience  of  death  overtook  him. 
The  liability  was  common  to  the  two  states;  the  doom  to 
remain  under  it,  instead  of  rising  above  it,  was  a  part  of  the 
penalty  of  transgression.  Now  the  Son  of  God,  in  becom- 
ing man,  certainly  took  what  was  common  to  both  states. 
He  took  a  body,  mortal  in  the  sense  of  being  physically 
capable  of  and  liable  to  death;  a  body  which  could  be  de- 

1  Christliche  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  220:  compare  ii.  p.  34,  where  the  uofxprj  SovXov 
is  defined  as  "die  der  unter  den  Folgen  der  Silnde  stehenden  Menschheit."  Foi 
v.he  reconciliation  of  these  two  propositions,  see  ii.  pp.  215-224. 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  261 

prived  of  vitality  by  hunger,  thirst,  exposure  to  cold,  by  a 
fall  from  a  precipice  or  by  the  thrust  of  a  spear,  and  which, 
however  sound  in  constitution  and  all  vital  organs,  was  not 
proof  against  evil  influences  in  its  environment,  such  as 
those  of  an  unwholesome  atmosphere  tainted  and  poisoned 
by  disease,  putrefaction,  malaria.  Emisit  animam,  ncn  ami' 
sit,  said  one  of  the  ancient  Fathers;  and  a  modern  writer, 
quoting  the  remark,  says  of  Christ,  that  "  He  could,  by  an 
exercise  of  divine  power,  die  without  doing  and  without 
knowing  sin."1  Such  language  would  convey  a  false  im- 
pression were  it  understood  to  mean,  that  it  was  necessary 
that  Christ  should  put  forth  divine  power  in  order  to  bring 
about  miraculously  a  state  of  death,  which,  otherwise,  the 
pain  of  the  cross  and  the  spear-wound  had  been  impotent 
to  produce.  Christ  did  doubtless  die  freely,  not  by  neces- 
sity; but  His  freedom  showed  itself  in  His  allowing  Him- 
self to  fall  into  the  hands  of  His  enemies,  and  in  permitting 
the  physical  causes  of  death  to  work  their  natural  effect. 
It  was  not  a  miracle  that  the  crucified  and  pierced  One 
died;  the  miracle  would  have  been  had  He  lived  in  spite 
of  nails  and  spear.  Thus  understood,  mortality  may  pro- 
perly be  reckoned  as  belonging  to  the  truth  of  Christ's 
humanity,  as  it  is  by  the  Reformed  theologian  Sadeel,  when 
he  says,  "  The  Word  assumed  human  nature,  mortal,  pati- 
ble,  and  sin  excepted,  like  us."  a 

These  observations  prepare  us  for  understanding  the  pe- 
culiar position  taken  up  by  Ebrard,  in  reference  to  the  status 
humilis  in  which  Christ  placed  Himself  by  becoming  man. 
On  the  one  hand,  he  holds  that  that  state,  inasmuch  as  it 
involved  merely  the  possibility  of  death,  was  a  return  to 
the  state  of  Adam  before  the  fall.  The  unfallen  state  he 
describes  as  consisting  in  these  particulars:  Moral  integrity, 
or  the  power  of  not  sinning,  the  posse  non  peccare;  do- 
minion over  the  creation;  perfect  physical  health  in  a  body 
not  bearing  the  seeds  of  death  in  itself;  yet  a  body  for 
which,  by  reason  of  its  constitution,  death  was  a  possi- 
bility convertible  into  a  certainty  in  case  of  sin.     The  state 

1  Dods,  On  the  Incarnation  of  the  Eternal  Word,  pp.  99,  165. 
s  De  veritate  humanae  naturae  Christi,  distinctio  vi. :   Ergo  verbum  assumpsit 
humanam  naturam  mortalem,  patibilem,  et  nobis,  excepto  peccato,  consimilem. 


262  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

assumed  by  Christ  he  holds  to  have  been  exactly  similar  to 
this,  embracing  moral  integrity,  that  is,  not  the  impossi- 
bility of  sinning,  but  the  power  not  to  sin:  dominion  over 
the  creation  manifested  in  His  miracles;  a  physical  organ- 
ism free  from  the  seeds  of  death,  perfectly  healthy,  and  so 
harmonizing  with  the  morally  healthy  soul,  yet  capable  of 
being  injured  by  unwholesome  natural  influences,  and  of 
undergoing  death  by  mechanical  violence,  not  to  say  by 
disease  in  case  of  abnormal  moral  development.  But,  on 
the  other  hand,  He  holds  that  the  status  humilis,  just  be- 
cause it  involved  even  the  possibility  of  death,  in  reality 
was  the  state  of  human  nature  as  under  the  consequences 
of  sin.  For  had  there  been  no  fall,  had  man  stood  his 
moral  trial,  the  physical  condition  suited  to  a  state  of  pro- 
bation, that,  viz.,  which  involved  the  possibility  of  death, 
would  have  given  place  to  a  state  involving  absolute  im- 
munity from  death;  and  the  Incarnation  (for  even  in  that 
case  there  would  have  been  an  Incarnation,  according  to 
our  author)  would  have  consisted  in  the  assumption  of  hu- 
manity in  a  glorified  form,  a  status  humilis  being  wholly 
excluded.1 

That  this  ingenious  theory  does  go  a  certain  length  in 
the  solution  of  a  difficult  problem  cannot  be  denied;  but  it 
is  open  to  question  whether  it  goes  far  enough  in  the  di- 
rection of  placing  our  Lord's  humanity  under  the  physical 
consequences  of  the  curse.  Ebrard's  judgment  is  liable  to 
suspicion,  because  his  eye  is  not  single,  his  aim  being  to 
construct  a  theory  of  the   Incarnation,  which,  while   not 

1  Christliche  Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  221.  On  the  two  senses  in  which  the  term  "mor- 
tal "  may  be  used,  see  p.  222,  note  2;  and  on  the  respects  in  which  Christ's  body 
was  and  was  not  liable  to  disease,  see  note  3.  p.  223.  Ebrard  alludes  to  the  med- 
ical distinction  between  health  dem  Breitengrade  nach,  and  health  dem  HOhen- 
grade  nach,  and  says  that  one  is  healthy,  in  the  former  sense,  who  bears  in  himsell 
no  disposition  to  disease;  and  in  the  latter  sense,  whose  organs,  whatever  their 
disposition  to  disease  may  be,  are  de  facto  for  the  time  in  a  healthy  working  con- 
dition. Of  one  healthy  in  the  former  sense,  he  remarks  that  it  is  possible  for  him 
to  be  unhealthy  in  the  second  sense  (the  inverse  case  being  equally  true).  Though 
perfectly  sound  in  constitution,  he  may  be  injured  in  his  vitals  by  cold,  wound- 
ing, or  poison,  or  even  in  the  course  of  physical  development.  The  former  sort 
of  health  he  ascribes  to  Christ,  that  is,  perfect  soundness  of  constitution,  but  stik 
not  such  as  to  exclude  diseases  arising  from  various  causes,  such  as  diseases  of  d& 
velopment  in  childhood. 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation*  263 

losing  sight  of  the  reason  assigned  in  Scripture  for  that 
event,  the  redemption  of  sinners,  shall  at  the  same  time 
satisfy  the  requirements  of  a  wider  plan,  that,  viz.,  of  pro- 
viding a  crown  for  creation  and  a  centre  for  humanity  in  a 
Pleromatic  Man,  endowed  with  all  human  gifts,  and  pos- 
sessing divine  attributes  in  the  form  adapted  to  the  hu- 
man mode  of  existence.1  Is  there  any  reason  to  believe 
that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  the  Pleromatic  Man  specula- 
tive theologians  make  Him  out  to  be  ?  In  physical  re- 
spects, for  example;  having  a  body  the  perfect  model  of 
human  form,  absolutely  sound  in  constitution,  happily 
blending  together  all  temperaments,2  so  that  to  the  second 
Adam  may  be  applied  the  language  in  which  poetry  has 
described  the  first: 

"  In  native  worth  and  honour  clad, 
With  beauty,  courage,  strength  adorned, 
Erect,  with  front  serene, 
He  stands  a  man,  the  Lord,  and  King  of  nature  all.'* 

Do  we  not  lose  in  reality  what  we  gain  in  ideality  by" 
this  theory  ?  Is  not  the  particular  interest  of  fallen  hu- 
manity somewhat  sacrificed  thereby  to  the  supposed  uni- 
versal interest  of  creation  ?  For  what  sorrow-laden  men* 
need  is  not  an  Apollo,  the  aesthetically  perfect  embodi- 
ment of  manly  beauty,  but  a  Christ  in  whom  they  can  con- 
fidently recognise  a  veritable  Brother;  and  for  this  purpose 
a  body  like  a  broken  earthen  vessel,  and  a  vision  marred 
more  than  any  man,  may  be  better  qualifications  than  the 
most  classic  beauty  of  face  and  form  that  ever  Greek  sculp- 
tor hewed  out  of  marble.  The  wisest  man  of  Greece  rep- 
resented Eros,  son  of  Poros  and  Penia,  as  far  from  being 
tender,  sleek,  and  beautiful  as  many  supposed;  but  lean, 
ill-favoured,  shoeless,  and  houseless,  a  poor  penniless  wan- 
derer sleeping  on  the  bare  ground  in  the  street,  or  on  the 
wayside.8  The  striking  picture  was  an  unconscious  pro- 
phecy of  incarnate  Love,  a  remarkable  divination  of  what 

1  See  Appendix,  Note  D,  Lecture  iv.  =  See  Appendix.  Note  A. 

3  Plato:  2TMII02ION  H  I1EPI  EP£1T02  (Sokrates  loquitur)  are  ovy 
TJopov  xai  Ilsviai  vioS  wv  6"EpGD%,  ev  zoiavry  xvxv  xaSe'dryxE-  itpw- 
kov  usv  TtevrjS  aei  t6ri,  xai  noXXov  8 si  dnakoS  te  xai  xaXdi,  olov  o\ 


264  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

it  became  such  Love  to  be  and  look  like,  even  a  man  of 
sorrow,  in  all  things  like  unto  His  brethren,  a  participant 
in,  that  He  might  be  a  succourer  to  them  under,  all  their 
infirmities.  And  even  such  was  Jesus  Christ.  That  He 
actually  experienced  disease  is  nowhere  said;  that  He 
could  not  experience  it  we  have  no  right  to  affirm.1  The 
just  view  seems  to  be  that  expressed  by  Henry  Alting,  who 
ascribes  to  Christ  the  infirmities  and  defects,  not  of  this  or 
that  individual,  such  as  leprosy  or  blindness,  but  those  of 
man's  whole  nature  springing  from  the  corruption  of  the 
same  through  sin.2 

Passing  now  to  the  other  question,  viz.,  how  far  does  the 
assumption  that  our  Lord's  human  nature  was  entirely  free 
from  sinful  bias  limit  His  experience  of  temptation  ?  it  must 
certainly  be  admitted,  as  Riehm  has  pointed  out,  that  one 
source  of  temptation  is  thereby  cut  off, — that,  viz.,  indicated 
by  the  expression  vitb  ziji  idias  inilvuias,  occurring  in  the 
Epistle  of  James.  Christ  was  not  and  could  not  be  tempted, 
in  the  sense  of  being  "  drawn  away  of  His  own  lust,  and  en- 
ticed." His  temptations  were  x&pis  duapvias,  "without  sin," 
not  only  in  their  result,  but  in  their  origin.  But  from  this 
fact  it  cannot  justly  be  inferred  that  Christ's  experience  of 
temptation  must  have  been  both  narrow  in  range  and  slight 
in  degree.  For,  in  the  first  place,  the  same  temptations 
may  arise  from  various  causes,  and  therefore  the  absence 
of  a  particular  cause  in  any  given  case  does  not  necessarily 
imply  exemption  from  the  temptation.  Both  the  coward 
and  the  brave  man  may  be  tempted  to  shrink  from  the 
fight;  the  one,  by  effeminacy  of  spirit  and  an  ignoble  love 
of  life;  the  other,  by  an  involuntary  sensitiveness  of  nature, 
or  by  a  generous  concern  for  his  family.  One  man  may  be 
tempted  by  angry  passion  or  by  greed  to  take  a  neighbour's 

TtoXkoi  oiovrai,  dX\d  6xXr]poi,  xai  avx/itfpo?,  xai  avvnobriroZ,  xxi 
.aoixoi'  ^awazffsr?/?  dei  aov,  xai  a6rpooroS  kiti  QvpaiS,  xai  Iv  6601S 
z>7i art pioiS  xoimgouevoS. 

1  See  note,  p.  262,  for  Ebrard's  view  on  this  point. 

'  Loci  communes,  pars  i.  p.  145:  Infirmitates  et  defectus,  non  hujus  vel  illius 
individui,  ut  lepra  (Matt.  viii.  2),  caecitas  (John  ix.  1)  sed  totius  naturae,  ex  ejus- 
dem  per  peccatum  corruptione  suscepti.  As  examples  of  infirmity.  Alting  mentions 
tristitia,  dolor,  timor,  ira,  in  the  mind;  in  the  body,  lassitudo  ex  itinere,  sudor, 
lachrymae. 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  265 

life;  another  man  may  be  tempted  by  the  very  intensity  of 
his  love  to  slay  his  own  son,  believing  it  to  be  his  duty  in 
this  way  to  show  that  he  loves  God  more  than  any  created 
good.  To  ascertain  this  very  thing  was  the  object  of 
Abraham's  temptation,  if  we  may  infer  the  design  from  the 
declared  result,  which  is  stated  in  these  terms:  "  Now  I 
know  that  thou  fearest  God,  seeing  thou  hast  not  withheld 
thy  son,  thine  only  son,  from  me."  Without  calling  in 
question  the  reality  of  an  objective  command,  it  is  not 
difficult  to  conceive  that  the  command  addressed  itself  to, 
and  found  a  fulcrum  in,  an  intense  desire  in  Abraham's  own 
heart  to  be  himself  satisfied  on  the  same  point.  Of  two 
possible  careers,  men  may  be  tempted  to  choose  that  one 
which  is  not  their  true  vocation,  from  very  opposite  motives. 
One  man  may  be  misled  by  vanity  or  ambition,  eager  to 
attain  social  distinction;  another  may  be  sorely  tempted  to 
forsake  the  better  way,  by  a  clear  perception  that  the  road 
along  which  gifts  and  conscience  bid  him  travel  will  be 
rough,  thorny,  steep,  and  in  all  respects  most  repulsive  to 
flesh  and  blood.  So  was  Jesus  tempted  to  choose  the  path 
of  a  worldly  Messiahship.  In  His  pure,  holy  soul  the 
passions  of  vanity  and  pride  had  no  place;  but  His  tempta- 
tion in  the  wilderness  was  not  on  that  account  a  mere  sham- 
fight.  Two  ways  were  set  before  His  mental  view, — how, 
whether  by  objective  Satanic  suggestion,  or  by  a  vision  in 
which  God's  thoughts  and  the  world's  concerning  Messiah's 
career  were  placed  in  contrast  side  by  side,  it  is  immaterial 
to  our  present  purpose  to  inquire; — but,  in  point  of  fact, 
the  two  ways  were  set  before  His  mind,  the  way  of  popu- 
larity on  the  one  hand,  and  the  way  of  the  cross  on  the 
other;  and  though  the  hosannas  of  the  mob,  and  the  insin- 
cere homage  of  the  higher  classes  of  society,  might  have 
small  attractions  for  His  lowly  spirit,  the  wholesale  deser- 
tion of  spurious  disciples,  the  incapacity  of  even  genuine 
disciples  to  give  Him  the  comfort  of  sympathetic  com- 
panionship as  He  walked  through  the  valley  of  the  shadow 
of  death,  the  hatred  of  sanctimonious  religionists  and  of 
selfish  unscrupulous  politicians,  the  treason  of  a  false  friend, 
the  infuriated  crowd  crying,  "  Away  with  him,  away  with 
him,"  the  horrors  of  crucifixion, — these  all  passing  as  dark 


266  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

possibilities  in  panoramic  view  before  His  eye,  were  surely 
enough  to  make  those  "  forty  days  and  forty  nights  Christ 
was  fasting  in  the  wild,"  days  and  nights  of  most  real  temp- 
tation, of  soul-trouble  and  agony,  whereof  forgetfulness 
of  physical  wants  was  but  the  natural  result,  as  it  was  the 
fitting  accompaniment  !  For  we  must  now  observe,  in  the 
second  place,  that  not  only  may  the  same  kind  of  tempta- 
tion proceed  from  morally  opposite  causes,  but  the  tempta- 
tion which  proceeds  from  a  holy  source  may  be  in  degree 
fiercer  than  that  which  has  its  origin  in  sinful  lust.  A 
familiar  illustration  will  make  this  plain.  Suppose  the  case 
of  two  men  engaged  in  trade:  one,  a  conscientious  man, 
whose  maxim  is:  "First  righteous,  then  as  prosperous  as 
possible;  "  the  other,  a  man  not  troubled  with  a  passionate 
love  of  righteousness,  vulgar  in  moral  tone,  and  bent  above 
all  things  on  getting  on  in  the  world.  Both  are  needy, 
and  are  also  placed  in  circumstances  which  bring  gain 
within  their  reach,  provided  they  do  not  stick  at  a  little 
fraud.  Look  now  into  the  breasts  of  these  men,  and  see 
what  takes  place  there.  The  one  says  to  himself,  "  I  am 
embarrassed  for  want  of  money.  I  am  not  able  to  meet 
my  obligations;  my  wife's  anxious  face,  and  my  children's 
pinched  features,  make  me  wretched  when  I  return  home, 
and  haunt  me  continually  in  the  market-place.  Here  is  an 
opportunity  of  obtaining  relief  from  my  difficulties  by  an 
act  of  dishonesty  not  seldom  committed  by  men  of  good 
commercial  standing.  But,  no;  get  thee  behind  me,  Satan 
— away  with  the  hateful  thought  !  I  dare  not  lie,  I  will 
rather  starve  and  beg  than  directly  or  circuitously  tell  an 
untruth."  The  other  says:  "  Ha  !  here  at  last  is  a  chance 
for  me.  I  have  been  miserably  kept  down  hitherto.  I  shall 
get  my  head  above  water  now;  I  see  my  way  clear  to 
making  a  very  considerable  profit  by  this  transaction.  No 
doubt  I  shall  have  to  indulge  in  a  little  sharp  practice. 
But  what  of  that  ?  Everybody  does  it;  it  is  but  a  common 
trick  of  trade,  and  quite  respectable;  and  whether  it  is 
respectable  or  not,  it  is  necessary,  and  I  must  do  it." 
Which,  now,  of  these  two  men  has  the  keener  experience 
of  temptation  ?  Surely  the  virtuous,  conscientious  man. 
He  passes  through  a  kind   of  Gethsemane,   an   agony  of 


Christ  the  Sttbjcct  of  Temptation.  267 

bloody  sweat,  a  mortal  struggle  between  love  for  wife  and 
children  and  desire  to  escape  the  disgrace  of  insolvency  on 
the  one  hand,  and  a  moral  revulsion  from  iniquity  on  the 
other.  The  other  man  has  no  agony — he  has  not  virtue 
enough  for  that;  there  is  nothing  in  him  to  stop  the  current 
of  evil  suggestion  and  make  it  rage.  He  is  not  so  much 
a  tempted  one,  as  one  who  has  been  drawn  away  of  his 
own  lust  and  enticed. 

It  thus  appears  that  sinful  dispositions,  though  certainly 
making  men  more  liable  to  fall  before  temptation,  do  not 
increase  the  painful  sense  of  being  tempted,  but  rather 
diminish  it.  As  a  matter  of  psychological  experience,  it  is 
the  good  man,  not  the  bad,  that  is  tempted.  Temptation 
presupposes  an  attitude  of  antagonism  to  evil,  and  springs 
out  of  the  difficulties  encountered  by  all  who  make  an  earn- 
est attempt  to  maintain  this  attitude.  It  is  in  this  way 
that  temptation  is  regarded  by  the  author  of  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  in  connection  with  his  doctrine  concerning  the 
sympathy  of  Christ  with  the  tempted.  The  purpose  he  has 
in  view  is,  to  comfort  Christians  under  the  difficulties  con- 
nected with  the  maintenance  of  their  Christian  profession, 
which  were  in  effect  so  many  temptations  to  apostasy;  and 
the  comfort  he  offers  is:  Jesus  can  sympathize  with  you,  for 
He  was  in  all  respects  tempted  as  you  are,  without  sin.  And 
trom  what  has  been  said,  it  appears  that,  notwithstanding 
the  qualifying  clause,  Jesus  was  the  companion  of  tempted 
Christians  in  these  two  respects  at  least:  He  shared  with 
them  the  attitude  of  resistance  to  evil,  and  He  maintained 
that  attitude  against  real,  immense,  and  manifold  difficul- 
ties. His  difficulties  were  not,  indeed,  in  all  respects  the 
same  as  those  of  His  followers.  A  Christian,  for  example, 
may  have  to  do  battle  even  unto  blood  with  a  lust  or 
appetite,  or  old  habit  that  wars  against  his  soul.  Christ 
had  no  such  battle  to  fight.  He  endured  the  contradiction 
of  sinners,  not  that  of  inclinations  to  sin.  But  does  that 
fact  cut  the  regenerated  drunkard  off  from  the  sympathy 
of  his  Redeemer  ?  No;  for  in  all  essential  respects  his 
temptation  was  experienced  by  Him  who  knew  no  sin.  The 
experience  of  the  disciple  consists  in  a  conflict  between  the 
will  of  the  spirit  and  the  desire  of  the  flesh;  the  experience 


268  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

of  the  Lord  was  essentially  the  same  when  He  said, 
"  Let  this  cup  pass,"  with  the  accidental,  though  most 
momentous  difference,  that  the  desire  of  His  sentient 
nature  was  in  itself  innocent.  The  disciple,  in  obedience 
to  the  will  of  God,  has  to  put  away  the  cup  his  flesh 
craves;  the  Master,  in  obedience  to  the  same  will,  had  to 
drink  the  cup  from  which  His  flesh  shrunk.  And  while 
the  temptations  of  both  are  essentially  the  same,  it  is  well 
for  the  disciple  that  the  accident  of  sinfulness  was  not 
present  in  the  desires  of  his  Lord's  human  nature.  For  had 
it  been  otherwise,  what  had  been  gained  ?  Only  com- 
panionship in  moral  weakness:  an  attribute  which  may 
qualify  for  receiving  succour  from  the  strong,  but  certainly 
not  for  being  a  succourer  to  the  weak. 

The  conclusion,  then,  to  which  the  foregoing  discussion 
leads  us  is,  that  we  need  have  no  hesitation  in  understand- 
ing the  qualifying  clause  "  without  sin  "  as  involving  the  ex- 
clusion from  Christ's  human  nature  of  all  sinful  proclivity, 
lest,  by  so  interpreting  it,  we  imperil  the  reality  or  the 
thoroughness  of  His  experience  of  temptation,  and  rob  our- 
selves of  the  consolations  arising  out  of  His  experimentally 
acquired  sympathy  with  the  tempted.1  But  now  another 
question  arises  in  connection  with  this  same  qualifying 
clause,  of  which  some  notice  must  be  taken  before  the 
present  subject  can  be  regarded  as  discussed  on  all  its 
sides.  "  Without  sin,"  by  universal  consent,  signifies,  at 
least,  "  tempted,  but  never  with  sinful  result."  The  ques- 
tion readily  suggests  itself:  How  was  this  invariably  happy 
issue  of  all  temptation  secured  or  guaranteed  ?  It  is  a 
question  much  more  easy  to  ask  than  to  answer,  for  the 
mind  of  an  inquirer  is  distracted  by  opposite  interests, 
whose  reconciliation  is  a  hard  speculative  problem.  On  the 
one  hand,  there  is  a  most  legitimate  jealousy  of  any  method 
of  guaranteeing  a  sinless  issue  which  tends  to  undermine 
the  reality  of  Christ's  temptations;  on  the  other,  there  is 
the  not  less  strong  feeling,  that  any  other  than  a  sinless 
result  in  His  case  cannot  be  seriously  contemplated  as  a 
real  possibility.     Under  the  influence  of  the  former  motive, 

1  Vid.  Appendix,  Note  B,  for  some  remarks  on  the  views  of  naturalistic  theo- 
logians on  the  subject  of  "  the  Flesh." 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  269 

one  is  inclined  to  describe  Christ's  moral  state  by  the 
phrase  potnit  non  peccare,  thereby  ascribing  to  Him  a  power 
of  choosing  and  doing  the  right,  which,  however,  implies 
the  opposite  alternative  as  a  possibility.  But  when  we 
allow  our  minds  to  dwell  on  the  dignity  of  Christ's  person, 
and  on  the  soteriological  importance  of  His  sinlessness,  we 
are  impelled  to  alter  our  mode  of  expression,  and  for  the 
phrase,  potait  non  peccare,  to  substitute  the  stronger  one, 
non  potuit  peccare,  and  maintain  an  impossibility  of  sinning. 
Which  of  the  two  phrases  is  the  more  appropriate,  or  are 
they  both  neccessary  to  express  the  whole  truth;  and  if  so, 
how  can  they  be  reconciled,  so  that  the  one  shall  not  virtu- 
ally cancel  the  other  ?  On  these  questions,  as  we  might 
have  expected,  opinions  differ  widely;  some  preferring  the 
weaker  phrase,  as  the  true  description  of  Christ's  moral 
condition  during  His  life  on  earth;  others  insisting  on  the 
stronger,  as  alone  doing  justice  to  the  moral  perfection  of 
the  incarnate  Son  of  God;  while  a  third  class  see  realized 
in  Christ  the  unity  of  moral  integrity  and  moral  perfection, 
at  once  the  power  not  to  sin  and  that  which  made  sin  im- 
possible. Whether  this  third  position  can  be  speculatively 
justified  or  not,  there  can  be  no  doubt,  at  all  events,  that 
the  combination  of  the  two  formulas  most  accurately  and 
satisfactorily  represents  the  facts.  The  potuit  non  signifies 
that  Christ's  experience  of  temptation  was  real;  that  in  His 
temptations  He  was  conscious  of  a  force  tending  to  draw 
Him  to  evil.  The  non  potuit,  on  the  other  hand,  signifies 
that  there  was  in  Christ  a  counter  force  stronger  than  the 
force  of  temptation,  which  certainly,  though  not  without 
effort,  ensures  in  every  case  a  sinless  result.  In  this  view 
of  our  Lord's  experience  of  temptation,  which  makes  it 
consist  in  a  constant  conflict  of  two  unequal  opposing  forces, 
it  becomes  very  important  to  provide  that  a  due  proportion 
between  the  conflicting  powers  shall  be  maintained.  If  the 
truth  represented  by  the  potuit  non — viz.,  that  the  force  of 
temptation  was  strong  enough  to  create  the  consciousness 
of  a  struggle — be  overlooked,  then  the  whole  curriculum  of 
moral  trial  through  which  Jesus  passed  on  earth  degener- 
ates at  once  into  a  mere  stage  performance.  This  one- 
sided tendency  characterized  the  ancient  Church,  and  finds 


270  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

apt  expression  in  the  saying  of  John  Damascenus,  already 
quoted,  that  Christ  "  repelled  and  dissipated  the  assaults  of 
the  enemy  like  smoke."1  In  modern  times  this  doketic  view 
finds  no  acceptance;  theologians  of  all  schools  being  agreed 
that  the  forces  of  evil,  with  which  the  Son  of  Man  fought 
so  noble  a  fight,  were  not  shadows,  but  substantial  and 
formidable  foes.  Even  those  who,  with  the  Catholic  Church 
of  all  ages,  believe  in  the  essential  divinity  of  Christ,  ener- 
getically protest  against  the  divine  element  being  brought 
in  as  an  overwhelming  force  on  the  side  of  good,  so  as  to 
make  the  force  at  work  on  the  side  of  evil  relatively  zero. 
The  divinity,  while  regarded  as  potentially  infinite,  is  con- 
ceived of  as,  in  its  applied  form,  only  a  finite  power  barely 
sufficient  to  counterbalance  another  operating  in  Christ's 
person  in  an  opposite  direction.  In  the  eloquent  words  of 
a  Scottish  theologian,  the  work  of  the  divine  nature  is  "not 
to  raise  Christ's  suffering  nature  to  such  a  height  of  glori- 
ous power  as  would  render  all  trial  slight  and  contemptible; 
but  to  confer  upon  it  such  strength  as  would  be  infallibly 
sufficient,  but  not  more  than  sufficient,  just  to  bear  Him 
through  the  fearful  strife  that  awaited  Him,  without  His 
being  broken  or  destroyed, — so  that  He  might  thoroughly 
experience,  in  all  the  faculties  of  His  soul  and  body,  the 
innumerable  sensations  of  overpowering  difficulty,  and 
exhausting  toil,  and  fainting  weakness,  and  tormenting 
anguish,  though  by  the  Holy  Ghost  preserved  from  sin, — 
and  might  touch  the  very  brink  of  danger,  though  not  be 
swept  away  by  it;  and  feel  all  the  horror  of  the  precipice, 
but  without  falling  over."3 

This  passage  may  be  accepted  as  a  satisfactory  statement 

'  Lecture  ii.  p.  72. 

2  Sermon  on  the  sympathy  of  Christ,  by  the  late  Professor  M'Lagan,  published 
.11  the  work  of  Mr.  Dods,  On  the  Incarnation  of  the  Eternal  Word;  see  pp.  299, 
300  of  that  work.  This  admirable  discourse  contains  some  well -selected  examples 
illustrative  of  the  truth,  that  temptations  arising  out  of  sinless  infirmities  may  be 
far  fiercer  than  those  which  arise  out  of  sinful  appetites.  The  author  compares 
the  cravings  of  the  intemperate  palate  for  wine,  with  the  natural  thirst  of  the 
parched  traveller  in  the  desert;  the  pampered  appetite  of  the  epicure,  with  the 
ravenous  hunger  of  the  famishing  man,  whose  fearful  power  is  exhibited  in  the 
story  of  the  siege  of  Samaria,  when  mothers  bargained  to  slay  in  succession  their 
own  children 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  271 

of  the  view  of  Christ's  temptations  held  in  common  by 
Christologists  of  the  Reformed  tendency,  who  have  ever 
been  anxious  so  to  conceive  of  our  Lord's  person,  as  to 
leave  to  the  forces  to  temptation  ample  room  wherein  to 
display  themselves.  And  as  a  clear  exposition  of  what  is 
required,  in  order  that  Christ's  experience  of  temptation 
may  possess  the  maximum  degree  of  reality  or  intensity, 
without  prejudice  to  His  sinlessness,  this  statement  leaves 
nothing  to  be  desired.  It  is  manifest,  however,  that  the 
sentences  quoted  contain  rather  the  statement  than  the 
solution  of  a  problem.  The  necessity  for  an  adjustment  of 
the  conflicting  powers,  so  that  they  shall  bear  some  finite 
proportion  to  each  other,  is  distinctly  recognised;  but  how 
the  adjustment  is  brought  about,  how  the  potentially  in- 
finite force  becomes  finite  in  effect,  is  not  explained.  The 
question  obviously  carries  us  back  to  the  already  discussed 
problem  of  the  kenosis.  Moreover,  even  after  that  question 
has  been  disposed  of,  another  comes  up  for  consideration — 
viz.,  in  what  way  is  the  divine  force,  become  finite,  made 
available  as  an  aid  to  the  successful  resistance  of  tempta- 
tion ?  The  only  hint  at  an  answer  to  this  question  in  the 
foregoing  extract  is  contained  in  the  words,  "  though  by 
the  Holy  Ghost  preserved  from  sin."  The  hint,  brief  though 
it  be,  condenses  the  substance  of  what  the  orthodox  Re- 
formed Christology  has  said  on  the  subject  to  which  it 
refers.  That  Christology,  as  we  know,  lays  great  stress  on 
the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  as  the  source  or  cause  of 
Christ's  holiness,  representing  the  human  wisdom  and  virtue 
of  our  Lord  as  qualities  produced  in  His  human  nature  by 
the  Logos  through  His  own  Spirit.1  This  view  may  be 
construed  to  mean  that  the  divine  power,  as  an  aid  to 
holiness  against  temptation  to  sin,  acted  not  directly  as  a 
physical  force,  but  as  a  moral  force  taking  the  form  of 
ethical  motive.  Thus  construed,  the  representation  in 
question  is  one  of  great  importance;  for  undoubtedly  the 
victory  of  Christ  over  temptation,  to  have  ethical  value, 
must  be  ethically  brought  about.  It  must  not  be  the 
matter-of-course  result  of  the  physical  ground  of  His  being, 
but  the  effect  brought  about  by  the  operations  of  the  Holy 
1  Vid.  Lecture  iii.  p.  125. 


272  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

Spirit  dwelling  in  Him  in  plenary  measure,  helping  Him  to 
exercise  strong  faith  and  to  cherish  lively  hope,  and  in- 
spiring Him  with  a  love  to  His  Father  and  to  men,  and 
with  a  consuming  zeal  for  righteousness,  which  should  be 
more  than  a  match  for  all  the  temptations  that  might  be 
directed  against  Him  by  Satan  and  an  evil  world,  acting 
on  and  through  a  pure  but  tremulously  sensitive  human 
nature.  So  regarded,  Christ's  strife  with  sin  is  a  fair  fight, 
and  His  conquest  a  moral  achievement,  and  the  physical 
divine  ground  is  simply  the  guarantee  that  gracious  influ- 
ences shall  be  supplied  to  the  adequate  extent.  Doubtless 
the  mystery  remains  how  the  guarantee  comes  into  play,  so 
as  to  ensure  the  desired  result,  through  the  operation  of 
such  influences.  But  the  burden  of  that  mystery  presses 
equally  on  all  who,  whatever  their  theory  of  Christ's  per- 
son, agree  in  maintaining  His  sinlessness;  and  no  advocate 
of  any  modern  theory  has  succeeded  in  saying  anything 
better  fitted  to  remove  the  load,  than  what  was  wont  to  be 
said  by  the  expounders  of  the  old  Reformed  Christology. 
Schleiermacher  ensures  Christ's  sinlessness  by  a  doctrine 
of  determinism  which  excludes  moral  freedom,  and  which 
is  able  to  dispense  with  the  miracle  of  the  Virgin-birth  by 
making  Christ's  whole  sinless  life  a  physical  miracle.1 
Rothe  seeks  his  guarantee  partly  in  the  supernatural  origin 
of  Jesus,  involving  freedom  from  original  sin;  partly  in  His 
comparatively  perfect  upbringing  in  a  circle  which,  through 
the  Hebrew  Scriptures,  was  in  possession  of  the  means  of 
knowing  fully  the  difference  between  good  and  evil,  so  that 
there  was  no  risk  of  the  holy  child  falling  into  sin  through 
ignorance;  partly  in  the  moral  energy  acquired  in  the  course 
of  thirty  years  spent  in  virtuous  retirement,  which  Jesus,  in 
ripe  manhood,  brought  to  the  hard  task  of  His  public 
career,2 — all  which,  taken  together,  rendered  sinlessness 
possible,  or  even,  we  may  admit,  probable,  but  not  certain. 
The  adherents  of  the  modern  kenotic  theory  have  not  been 
much  more  successful  than  these  advocates  of  a  purely 
humanitarian  view  of  our  Lord's  person.  One  says,  that 
Jesus  would,  in  fact,  maintain  His  innocence  was  foreseen, 

1  Der  christliche  Glanbe,  Band  ii.  p.  67  (§  97). 

2  Theologische  Ethik,  Band  ii.  pp.  28(1,  28 1. 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  273 

ar>d  therefore  the  risk  involved  in  the  Incarnation  was  run.' 
Another  ascribes  to  Jesus  a  non posse peccare  from  the  outset, 
as  a  distinction  necessarily  belonging  to  a  theanthropic  un- 
created personality,  whose  becoming  in  time  was  preceded 
by  an  ethical  being,  the  benefit  of  which  He  reaped  on 
entering  into  the  incarnate  state.2  A  third  contents  him- 
self with  saying  that  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  could  not 
deny  Himself;  the  man  Jesus,  therefore,  could  not  sin,  His 
human  historical  will  could  not  enter  into  contradiction 
with  the  eternal  divine  will  dwelling  within  it,  and  the 
eternal  God  became  man  just  because  this  was  the  way  to 
certain  victory  over  sin.*  A  fourth,  while  admitting  that  a 
posse  peccare  was  a  possibility  involved  in  freedom,  repre- 
sents it  as  only  an  abstract  possibility  which  could  not  in 
Christ's  case  be  realized.4  A  fifth  lays  stress  on  the  pre- 
dominant passion  of  Christ's  will  preventing  the  slightest 
trembling  in  the  balance,  while  the  free  will  of  all  other 
men  is  intrinsically  indifferent;5  which  was  certainly  a 
characteristic  of  our  Lord  as  a  matter  of  fact;  but  the 
question  forces  itself  on  us,  Whence  this  difference  between 
Christ  and  all  other  men  ?  The  fact  is  the  very  thing  to  be 
accounted  for.  Yet  another,  to  mention  just  one  more, 
teaches  that  the  potuit  non  peccare  and  the  non  potuit  peccare, 
so  far  from  excluding,  rather  imply  each  other;  that  the 
sinlessness  of  Christ  is  accounted  for,  neither  by  His  free 
ethical  fight  with  temptation  alone,  nor  by  His  holy 
natural  development  alone,  but  by  the  union  of  both;  and 
that  the  guarantee  that  the  possibility  of  evil  should  never 
become  a  reality  lay,  not  in  Christ's  virtue  or  innocence, 
the  relation  of  merely  negative  goodness  to  temptation 
being  always  doubtful,  not  in  the  divine  nature  viewed 
apart  from  the  human,  any  more  than  in  the  human  nature 
viewed  apart  from  the  divine,  but  in  the  indissoluble  bond 
between  the  two  natures;  a  bond  which  could  be  strained 
to  the  uttermost  by  the  power  of  temptation,  but  which 

1  Gess.     See  Lecture  iv.  p.  150. 
!  Liebner.     See  Appendix,  Note  B,  Lecture  iv. 
3  Hofmann.     See  Appendix,  Note  C,  Lecture  iv. 
*  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  und  Werk,  ii.  p.  126. 

»  Mr.  Hutton,  Essays,  Theological  and  Literary,  p.  261.    See  Appendix,  Not* 
F,  Lecture  iv. 


274  Tk&  Humiliation  of  CJirist. 

could  never  be  broken  asunder.  Of  all  the  utterances  of 
the  kenotic  school  this  is  the  most  satisfactory,  and  it 
emanates  from  one  whose  Christological  theory  comes 
nearest  to  the  Reformed  type.1 

II.  In  the  same  book  of  the  New  Testament  in  which 
Christ  is  represented  as  passing  through  an  experience  of 
temptation,  He  is  also  spoken  of  as  the  subject  of  moral  de- 
velopment. The  tempted  one  is  conceived  of  as  in  course 
of  being  perfected,  and  when  the  curriculum  of  temptation 
is  ended  He  is  regarded  as  perfect.  The  notion  of  perfect- 
ing, reAeimois,  is  applied  to  Christ  four  times  in  the  Epistle 
to  the  Hebrews.  It  is  first  introduced  in  the  second  chapter, 
where  the  Captain  of  salvation  is  represented  as  being  per- 
fected through  sufferings;  2  it  reappears  in  the  fifth  chapter, 
where  it  is  said  of  the  Son  of  God  that,  being  made  perfect, 
He  became  the  Author  of  eternal  salvation;3  it  occurs  for 
the  third  time  in  the  seventh  chapter,  where  the  Son,  in 
the  state  of  exaltation  after  His  state  of  humiliation  is 
past,  is  described  as  perfected  for  evermore;4  and  finally, 
it  may  be  recognised  in  that  place  of  the  twelfth  chapter 
where  Jesus  is  called  the  leader  and  perfecter  of  faith;  the 
idea  being,  that  faith  was  one  of  the  things  in  which  Jesus 
Himself  was  perfected,  and  in  which,  therefore,  He  is  a 
model  to  all  Christians.5 

That  these  two  doctrines — viz.  that  Christ  on  earth  was 
tempted,  and  that  during  the  same  period  He  was  the  sub- 

i  Martensen,  Die  christliche  Dogmatik,  pp.  263,  264:  Die  MOglichkeit  des  BOsen 
regt  sich  auch  in  dem  zweiten  Adam;  dass  aber  diese  MOglichkeit  niemals  Wirk- 
lichkeit  vvird,  wie  in  dem  ersten  Adam,  sondern  nur  als  der  dunkle  Grund  fttr  die 
Offenbarung  der  Heiligkeit  dienen  muss,  dafur  biirgt  nicht  die  Tugend  oder  die 
Unschuld,  denn  deren  Verhaltniss  zur  Versuchung  ist  immer  gar  ungewiss  und 
zweifelhaft,  nicht  die  gOttliche  Natur  in  ihrer  Trennung  von  der  menschlichen, 
auch  nicht  die  menschliche  Natur  in  ihrer  Trennung  von  der  gOttlichen,  sondern 
das  unaufloshche  Band  zwischen  der  gOttlichen  und  menschlichen  Natur,  ein  Baud 
das  zwar  bis  zum  aussersten  Gegensatz  und  zur  Sussersten  Spannung  zwischen 
den  Naturen  gebogen  und  bewegt  werden,  niemals  aber  zerreissen  kann  (p.  264). 

2  Heb.  ii.  10:  Sid  Ttarii]udroov  TEAeicSdai. 

3  Heb.  v.  9:  xai  rsXeiGoOsis  iyivtto  xoiZ  vita.Kovov6i\'  avr<5  na6n 
%irio<i  6(*>zr/piaZ  aiooviov. 

4  Heb.  vii.  28:  viov  eiZ  rov  atcSva  teteXeigou£vov. 

b  Heb.  xii.  2:   rov  rr/5  7ti6rscoi  cipxvyov  xai  tsXsigottjv  'b/tfovv- 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  2j5 

ject  of  a  perfecting  process — should  be  taught  by  the  same 
inspired  writer,  so  far  from  being  surprising,  is  rather  a 
matter  of  course.  For  the  two  doctrines  imply  each  other, 
and  are  complementary  of  each  other.  Wherever  there  is 
temptation,  there  is  something  to  be  learned,  something  that 
is  actually  learned;  if  not  the  habit  of  watchfulness  against 
some  moral  infirmity  whose  presence  has  been  revealed  by 
temptation  at  least  the  virtues  of  patience  and  sympathy, 
and  the  need  and  use  of  faith  and  prayer.  On  the  other 
hand,  wherever  there  is  room  for  a  process  of  perfecting, 
there  is  room  also  for  temptation.  For  as  the  perfect  state 
is  a  state  tempation-proof,  so  a  state  short  of  perfection  is 
a  state  of  liability  to  be  tried  and  proved  by  temptation,  and 
capable  of  being  advanced,  by  this  very  trial  and  proof,  to 
the  higher  perfect  state  in  which  temptation  can  have  no 
place,  because  neither  in  the  subject  nor  in  His  environment 
do  the  necessary  conditions  any  longer  exist. 

In  these  observations  I  proceed,  it  will  be  observed,  on 
the  assumption  that  the  notion  expressed  by  the  term 
TeAeiaodis  has  an  ethical  import,  as  applied  to  Christ  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  This  has  been  disputed,  and  the 
statements  referred  to  have  been  explained  to  signify  that 
Christ,  by  His  earthly  experience,  was  qualified  for  His 
office  as  High  Priest;  that  on  His  ascension  into  glory  He 
was,  so  to  speak,  consecrated  or  solemnly  installed  as  a 
Priest  whose  sacerdotal  office  should  last  for  ever,  a  Priest 
after  the  order  of  Melchizedek;  and  that  at  the  same 
time  He  entered  into  a  state  of  perfect  personal  felicity, 
exempt  now  and  for  ever  from  the  infirmities  and  miseries 
of  the  days  of  His  flesh.  But  the  truth  is,  the  term  in 
question  covers  all  these  ideas,  and  that  of  moral  develop- 
ment over  and  above.  The  perfecting  process  has  refer- 
ence at  once  to  Christ's  office,  to  His  condition,  and  to 
His  character.  These  three  aspects,  far  from  being  mu- 
tually exclusive  or  incompatible,  rather  imply  each  other. 
For  example,  suppose  we  understand  the  passage  in 
the  second  chapter  as  signifying  that,  by  suffering,  the 
Captain  of  salvation  was  perfected,  fully  fitted  for  His 
office  of  Saviour,  the  question  at  once  arises,  In  what  does 
the  outfit  of  a  Captain  of  salvation  consist  ?     What  if  that 


276  TIic  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

outfit  should  be  found  to  include  very  specially  a  bond  of 
sympathy  between  Leader  and  led,  based  on  a  common 
experience  of  hardship,  and  inspiring  in  those  who  are  to 
be  conducted  to  glory  unbounded  confidence  in  their  Con- 
ductor ?  Why,  then,  it  would  follow  that  an  ethical  in- 
gredient enters  into  the  process  of  official  perfecting.  The 
Captain  becomes  perfectly  fit  for  His  office  by  this  means, 
among  others,  that  through  comradeship  in  suffering  He 
learns  that  intense  sympathy  with  His  followers  which 
gains  their  hearts,  and  so  gives  Him  unlimited  moral  power 
over  them.  Or,  again,  suppose  we  take  perfected  as  signi- 
fying beatified — introduced  into  a  state  of  perfect  felicity. 
Whenever  we  begin  to  consider  what  such  a  state  involves, 
we  perceive  that  an  ethical  element  enters  into  it.  Part  of 
Christ's  felicity  in  the  state  of  exaltation  consists  in  His 
being  delivered  from  those  infirmities  to  which  He  was  sub- 
ject in  the  state  of  humiliation,  and  by  which  He  was  ex- 
posed to  powerful  temptations.  That  is  to  say,  Christ's 
entrance  into  heavenly  bliss  signifies  this  among  other 
things,  that  He  thereby  passed  from  a  state  in  which  He 
could  be  tempted  into  a  state  in  which  He  cannot  be  tempted, 
— a  transition  implying  an  ethical  progress  from  the  incom- 
plete to  the  perfect. 

It  thus  appears  that,  whether  we  start  from  the  official 
or  from  the  beatific  point  of  view,  we  end  at  last  in  an 
ethical  conception  of  the  teAeigo6is  predicated  of  Christ. 
And  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  writer  of  the  Epistle, 
in  which  the  deep  thought  expressed  by  that  word  is  found, 
gives  to  the  ethical  side  marked  prominence.  When  he 
speaks  of  Christ  as  perfected  for  His  office,  he  adduces  the 
proof  of  His  perfection  thus:  "In  that  He  Himself  hath 
suffered,  being  tempted,  He  is  able  to  succour  them  that 
are  tempted."1  Nor  is  this  faculty  of  help  connected  with 
personal  experience  of  temptation  in  a  merely  casual  way, 
as  if  it  would  have  made  little  difference  though  the  experi- 
ence had  been  dispensed  with.  On  the  contrary,  a  curri- 
culum of  temptation  is  represented  as  indispensable,  by 
way  of  training  for  office.  "Wherefore  in  all  things  it  be- 
hoved Him  to  be  made  like  unto  His  brethren,  that  He 

'  Heb.  ii.  iS. 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  277 

might  be  a  merciful  and  trustworthy  High  Priest  in  things 
pertaining  to  God,  to  make  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the 
people."1  In  the  second  passage,  in  which  the  idea  of 
perfectification  occurs,  it  might  be  very  fairly  contended 
that  the  ethical  side  was  the  one  directly  and  immediately 
presented  to  view,  inasmuch  as  the  thought  is  introduced 
in  connection  with  the  statement  that  Christ,  though  a  Son, 
yet  learned  obedience  by  the  things  which  He  suffered.  It 
seems  a  very  legitimate  inference,  that  "being  made  per- 
fect "  means,  perfected  in  the  virtue  of  obedience.  But 
granting  that  we  ought  rather  to  interpret  the  phrase  as 
signifying  perfected  for  office,  still  it  is  impossible  to  deny 
that  in  the  writer's  view  the  process  of  perfecting  has  an 
ethical  aspect.  Christ's  obedience  to  His  Father  is  re- 
garded as  a  quality  which  fits  Him  for  receiving  in  turn  the 
obedience  of  others,  and  for  being  the  Author  of  eter- 
nal salvation  to  all  them  that  do  obey  Him.  And  this 
obedience  of  His  is  spoken  of  as  something  learned;  and, 
reading  backwards,  we  find  that  the  learning  was  by  no 
means  easy,  but  very  irksome  indeed,  to  flesh  and  blood. 
Thus  we  get  the  thought  that,  in  order  to  perfect  fitness 
for  the  office  of  Saviour  as  a  Royal  Priest,  Jesus,  in  the 
days  of  His  flesh,  in  the  school-days  of  His  earthly  life, 
underwent  a  process  of  moral  training  whose  end  was  to 
perfect  Him  in  the  virtue  of  obedience,  and  which  was 
adapted  to  that  end  by  the  tremendous  severity  of  the 
tasks  prescribed,  and  the  trials  proposed.  The  official  per- 
fecting thus  embraces  within  it  a  process  of  moral  perfect- 
ing, which  leaves  the  subject  thereof  in  a  higher  moral 
state  at  the  end  than  it  found  Him  at  the  beginning.  And 
this  idea  of  a  moral  growth  is  by  no  means  slurred  over  by 
the  writer;  on  the  contrary,  he  employs  all  his  powers  of 
eloquence  to  give  it  the  greatest  possible  breadth  and 
vividness.  Starting  from  the  general  principle  that  no 
right-minded  man  taketh  to  himself  offices  of  honour  and 
high  responsibility,  above  all,  such  an  office  as  that  of  the 
priesthood,  but  only  in  obedience  to  a  divine  call,3  he  ap- 

•  Heb.  ii.  17. 

s  Heb.  v.  4:  xai  ovx  eavrcp  ziS  Xanfidvei  ttjy  tiut)Y. 


278  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

plies  it  to  the  case  of  Christ  by  the  remark:  "  So  also  Christ 
glorified  not  Himself  to  be  made  an  high  priest."1  Then, 
to  show  how  utterly  remote  such  a  thought  was  from  the 
Saviour's  mind,  how  utterly  innocent  He  was  of  the  spirit 
of  self-glorification,  in  connection  with  the  office  to  which 
He  was  called  by  the  voice  of  God  in  Scripture,  the  writer 
goes  on  to  describe  the  agony  in  Gethsemane  endured  by 
the  Great  Priest,  just  before  He  passed  through  the  rent 
veil  of  His  flesh,  to  make  an  offering  for  the  sin  of  the 
world.'  It  is  as  if  he  had  said:  "Jesus  took  the  honour  of 
the  priesthood  on  Himself?  Ah,  no  !  there  was  no  tempta- 
tion to  that,  in  connection  with  an  office  in  which  the 
Priest  had  to  be  at  the  same  time  victim.  Let  the  agony  in 
the  garden  bear  witness  that  Jesus  was  not  in  the  mood  to 
arrogate  to  Himself  the  sacerdotal  dignity.  That  agony 
was  an  awfully  earnest,  utterly  sincere,  while  perfectly  sin- 
less, Nolo  Pontifex  Fieri  on  the  part  of  One  who  real- 
ized the  tremendous  responsibilities  of  the  post  to  which 
He  was  summoned,  and  who  was  unable  for  the  moment 
to  find  any  comfort  in  the  thought  of  its  honours  and  pro- 
spective joys."  It  almost  seems  as  if  the  writer  had  it  in 
mind  to  suggest  a  parallel  between  Christ  passing  through 
the  struggle  in  the  garden,  and  the  high  priest  of  Israel 
presenting  an  offering  first  for  himself  before  officiating  in 
behalf  of  the  people, — a  parallel  to  the  extent  that  in  both 
cases  there  was  a  confession  of  weakness.  Such  a  parallel 
is  suggested  by  the  sacrificial  expression  "  offered  up,"  used 
in  reference  to  Christ's  prayers  with  strong  crying  and  tears; 
and  also  by  the  statement  that  He  was  heard  for  His  piety, 
which  seems  to  hint  that  His  offering  was  accepted,  even 
as  that  of  the  high  priest  was  wont  to  be.  The  high  priest's 
sacrifice  for  himself  was  accepted  because  it  was  a  sincere 
confession  of  sin;  Christ's  prayer  for  Himself  was  accepted 
because  it  was  an  unreserved  confession  of  weakness,  un- 
accompanied by  sin,  inasmuch  as  its  last  word  was,  "  Not 
as  I  will,  but  as  Thou  wilt."  The  high  priest  was  accepted 
for  the  piety  of  sincere  penitence;  Jesus  was  accepted  for 

1  Heb.  v.   5:   ovrooi  xai  6  XpiGroS  ovx  iavrov  £86ca6e  yevtfbifvat 
dpxitpea- 

2  Heb.  v.  7. 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  279 

the  piety  of  filial  submission,  triumphing  over  the  sinless, 
though  extreme,  weakness  of  sentient  human  nature.1 

It  thus  appears  that  the  writer  of  this  Epistle,  far  from 
glossing  over  the  contrast  between  the  imperfect  and  the 
perfect  states  of  Christ,  rather  makes  it  as  glaring  as  pos- 
sible. His  manifest  design  is,  to  represent  our  Lord's 
weakness  as  going  to  the  utmost  limits  short  of  actual  dis- 
obedience and  sin.  He  has  a  double  purpose  in  view,  one  be- 
ing to  magnify  the  merit  of  an  obedience  loyally  rendered 
under  so  trying  circumstances — to  show,  in  fact,  that  one 
who  passed  through  such  an  experimentum  cruets  was  indeed 
morally  perfect.  The  other  purpose  is  to  make  evident 
how  thoroughly  fitted  Jesus  is  to  sympathize  with  the  weak, 
He  Himself  having  been  compassed  about  with  so  great 
infirmity.  He  portrays  the  agony  in  lurid  colours,  for  the 
same  reason  that  it  is  so  carefully  recorded  in  the  Gospels, 
and,  may  we  not  add,  for  the  same  reason  that  Jesus  Him- 
self allowed  His  inward  trouble  to  appear  so  plainly  in  the 
presence  of  three  witnesses,  by  whom  it  might  be  reported 
to  all  the  world.  Had  He  thought  of  Himself  only,  He 
might,  like  many  a  sufferer,  have  played  the  stoic.  But  He 
thought  of  the  weak  of  all  ages;  therefore  He  hid  not 
His  own  weakness,  but  gave  it  full  vent  in  prayers  and 
tears,  and  loud  cries  and  prostrations,  falling  forward 
all  His  length  on  the  ground,  now  praying  in  articulate 
language,  now  uttering  inarticulate  groans,  anon  subsiding 
into  silent  weeping;  His  soul  resembling  the  sea  in  a  storm, 
when  the  great  billows  rise  up  at  a  distance  from  the  shore, 
roll  on  majestically  nearer  and  nearer,  then  break  on  the 
sands  with  a  mighty  noise  audible  to  men  even  in  their 
slumbers. 

In  the  third  place,  where  the  notion  now  under  discussion 
occurs  in  the  Epistle,  the  ethical  aspect  is  not  less  con- 
spicuous than  in  the  two  preceding.  The  Son,  constituted 
a  Priest  after  the  order  of  Melchizedek,  not  by  the  Leviti- 

1  So  Hofmann,  Sckriftbeweis,  ii.  399,  to  whom  I  am  indebted  for  the  thought 
in  the  text.  Hofmann  says:  Jesu  Flehen  urn  Abwendung  des  Todesleidens  ist 
gleicher  Massen  wie  des  Hohepriesters  Opfer  fur  sich  selbst  eine  fromme  Aeusserung 
der  Schwachheit,  nur  mit  dem  Unterschiede,  welcher  zwischen  der  Schwachheit 
d.  ;  "-'.'.ndigen  Hohepriesters  und  der  des  sundlosen  Heilands  besteht. 


2 So  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

cal  law,  but  by  the  word  of  the  oath,  is  described  as 
"  perfected  for  evermore,"  in  contrast  with  the  Old  Testa- 
ment high  priests,  who  are  described  as  "  men  having 
infirmity."  The  infirmity  alluded  to  is  such  as  lays  men 
open  to  temptations,  through  which  they  often  fall  into  sin; 
such,  therefore,  as,  in  the  case  of  the  high  priests,  was 
indirectly  the  cause  why  they  had  to  offer  a  sacrifice  for 
themselves  before  offering  one  for  the  people.  The  perfect- 
ing of  the  Son,  consequently,  must  be  held  to  consist  in 
deliverance  from  infirmity  of  the  same  kind;  infirmity,  that 
is,  through  which,  in  the  days  of  His  flesh,  He  became 
liable  to  temptation,  and  sin  became  a  possibility,  though 
nothing  more  than  a  bare  possibility  for  Him.  To  be  liable 
to  temptation  is  regarded  as  a  morally  incomplete  state, 
and  the  perfect  state  is  conceived  of  as  a  state  of  exaltation 
above  the  region  of  temptation,  where  there  is  no  infirmity 
to  be  used  as  a  fulcrum  by  the  tempter,  and  no  tempter  to 
take  advantage  of  an  opportunity. 

The  reAeioodis  of  Christ,  then,  according  to  the  representa- 
tion of  it  given  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  includes  a 
process  of  moral  perfecting.  This  process  does  not  exhaust 
the  idea;  for  the  perfection  ascribed  to  Christ  after  His 
departure  from  the  world  is  a  comprehensive  name  for  His 
state  of  exaltation  in  all  its  aspects,  whether  regarded  as 
the  state  in  which  He  exercises  His  Melchizedek  priest- 
hood, or  as  that  in  which  He  is  free  from  the  miseries  of  this 
mortal  life,  and  enjoys  the  felicity  of  the  life  unending;  or 
as  that  in  which  He  is  for  ever  exempt  from  temptation, 
and  raised  above  the  position  of  one  undergoing  moral  pro- 
bation. All  that  is  here  insisted  on  is,  that  this  last  item 
forms  an  essential  and  important  part  of  the  idea.  The 
exalted  Christ  is  regarded  by  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  as 
one  now  morally  perfected;  the  earthly  state  of  humiliation 
is  regarded  as  a  school  of  virtue,  in  which  Christ  had  to 
learn,  and  did  thoroughly  learn,  certain  moral  lessons;  the 
experience  of  temptation  is  viewed  in  the  light  of  a  curri- 
culum of  ethical  discipline,  designed  to  make  the  tempted 
One  master  of  certain  high  heroic  arts,  the  arts  to  be  mas- 
tered being  those  of  Patience,  Obedience,  and  Sympathy. 

The  fact  having  been  thus  ascertained,  that  the  notion  of 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  281 

moral  development  as  applied  to  Christ  has  a  foundation  in 
Scripture,  it  remains  to  advert  briefly  to  two  questions 
which  have  been  much  discussed  in  connection  with  the 
present  topic.  One  of  these  questions  naturally  arises  out 
of  that  view  of  our  Lord's  earthly  experience  according  to 
which  it  was  a  training  for  His  office  as  the  Saviour.  The 
question  is  this:  When,  then,  did  Christ  enter  on  His 
priestly  duties  ?  was  it  on  earth  when  He  suffered  on  the 
cross,  or  was  it  not  till  He  had  ascended  into  glory  ?  The 
question  was  first  formally  propounded  and  discussed  by 
Faustus  Socinus;  but  theological  controversy  may  be  said 
to  have  stumbled  on  its  threshold  as  early  as  the  days  of 
Nestorius  and  Cyril.  The  Antiochian  school,  true  to  its 
ethical  tendency,  insisted  strenuously  on  the  reality  of  a 
moral  growth  in  Christ,  and  regarded  His  experience  of 
temptation  as  an  ethical  discipline,  by  which  He  was  pre- 
pared for  the  office  of  the  priesthood.  Conceiving  that 
office  as  an  honour,  they  spoke  of  Christ  as  advancing 
gradually  to  the  dignity  of  high  priest.1  Cyril,  on  the  other 
hand,  admitted  neither  the  growth  nor  the  conception  of 
the  priestly  office  as  an  honour.  He  affirmed  that  Christ 
grew  in  virtue  as  in  wisdom — that  is,  only  in  the  sense  of 
graduated  manifestation;  and  the  notion  of  a  gradual 
advance  to  the  priesthood  as  an  honour,  he  combated  by 
asking  his  opponents  the  question,  If  the  priestly  office  was 
an  honour  to  which  Christ  advanced,  what  becomes  of  the 
kenosis  ?2  Thus,  on  the  one  side,  the  sacerdotal  functions 
of  Christ  were  referred  to  the  category  of  exaltation,  while 
on  the  other  they  were  thought  of  as  belonging  to  the  state 
of  humiliation.  In  justice,  however,  to  the  theologians  of 
Antioch,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  their  position  does 
not  necessarily  signify,  that  Christ's  priesthood  was  wholly 

1  Cyril,  Adv.  Nestorium,  lib.  iii.  cap.  3.  Cyril  quotes  Nestorius  speaking  ot 
Christ  as  owroS  6  xard  /uixpov  eii  dpxiEps'cj?  TtpoxoipaS  d^iooua  {Op. 
vol.  ix.  p.  148).  Vid.  also  Apologeticus  pro  XII.  capitibus,  Anath.  x.;  and 
Apol.  contra  Theodoretum,  Anath.  x. 

*  Cyril,  Adv.  Nest.  lib.  iii.  c.  4:  Kexevooxe  St/  ovv,  xai  TETcaiEivooxEV 
kavrdv  HatieiS  kv  ueiodi-  IlaSi  ovv  in  npoExoipEv  si?  dci'co/ua  ye- 
yovGJ?  ispEvS  (p.  152).  Similarly  in  the  other  places  referred  to  in  preceding 
note.  Ei  8e  npoixo^E,  xazd  viva  xExsvoorat  rportov.  Ei  Ttpoexoipe, 
tcgoS  xExivoozai,  xoci  kitrooxEv6Ev. 


2S2  The  Humiliation  of  Clirist. 

relegated  to  a  state  of  exaltation  subsequent  in  time  to  the 
state  of  humiliation,  and  commencing  after  the  latter  was 
at  an  end.  It  might  mean  only  that  the  office,  which  in 
one  respect  was  a  humiliation,  was  in  another  respect,  and  at 
the  same  time,  an  honour  for  which  Jesus  was  gradually- 
prepared  by  His  course  of  obedience.  In  that  case  it  is 
quite  conceivable,  that  at  least  some  of  the  duties  pertain- 
ing to  the  high  and  honourable  office  might  be  performed 
on  earth,  and  so  fall  within  what  we  are  accustomed  to  call 
the  state  of  humiliation.  In  point  of  fact,  Nestorius  and 
his  brethren  of  the  same  school  did  regard  Christ's  death 
as  a  priestly  sacrifice,  while  apparently  regarding  it  also 
as  the  last  step  in  the  process  by  which  Christ  was  pre- 
pared for  His  Melchizedek  priesthood,  and  became  abso- 
lutely a  pontifex  consummatus}  In  this  double  way  of  con- 
templating our  Lord's  passion — as  on  one  side  a  humiliation, 
on  another  an  exaltation;  and  again,  as  in  one  respect  the 
final  stage  of  a  preparatory  discipline,  intended  to  qualify 
the  sufferer  for  an  eternal  priesthood,  and  in  another  the 
offering  of  Himself  a  sacrifice  for  the  sins  of  the  world — 
the  Syrian  theologians  were  much  superior  to  Cyril,  who 
deemed  dignity  and  suffering  incompatible  notions,  failed 
to  see  that  it  was  an  honour  to  Christ  to  be  appointed  to 
an  office  which  permitted  and  required  Him  to  taste  death 
for  every  man,  and  was  therefore  virtually  compelled  to 
regard  the  priestly  office  solely  as  an  indignity  to  which 
the  Son  of  God  was  subjected  in  the  state  of  exinanition. 
If  the  views  of  the  Antioch  school  of  Christologists  were 
such  as  now  represented,  then  the  credit  belongs  to  it  of 
anticipating  the  true  answer  to  the  question  raised  in  modern 
times  by  the  founder  of  the  Socinian  sect.2  For  here,  as 
in  so  many  other  cases,  truth  lies  on  both  sides  of  the  con- 
troversy. A  candid  and  unbiassed  examination  of  all  the 
relative  passages  shows  that  two  distinct,  though  not  con- 
tradictory, ways  of  regarding  the  priesthood  of  Christ  are 
to  be  found  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  The  Priest  of 
the  New  Dispensation  is  the  Antitype  at  once  of  Aaron  and 

1  Cyril.  Apol.  contra  Theodor.  Anath.  x.:  o5  Ttd6t]i  duocpriaZ  vitdpxoov 
IXsvOspoS,  dpxiepevS  rj/iidSv,  xai  iepelov  kyevero'  avzoS  iavrov  vitefi 
tj/UGov  tgo  &saj  Ttpo6evsyKoov  (vol.  ix.  p.  437). 

2  See  App;ndix,  Note  C. 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Te?7iptation.  283 

of  Melchizedek.  Regarded  in  the  latter  capacity,  He  is 
undoubtedly  conceived  of  as  entering  upon  His  priesthood 
on  His  ascension  into  heaven,  and  this  in  entire  harmony 
with  the  nature  of  the  priesthood  after  the  order  of  Mel- 
chizedek. For  that  order  or  species  is  the  ideal  of  priest- 
hood realized,  and  as  such  possesses  the  attributes  of  eternity, 
perfect  personal  righteousness  as  the  qualification  for  office, 
regal  dignity,  and  a  corresponding  state  of  felicity.  In  this 
light  the  Melchizedek  priesthood  is  regarded  by  the  writer 
of  our  Epistle.  Introduced  first  apologetically,  as  a  wel- 
come means  of  showing  that  the  Scriptures  knew  of  an- 
other kind  of  priesthood  besides  the  Levitical,  and  that 
therefore  it  was  possible  for  Christ  to  be  a  priest  though 
destitute  of  the  /^-^/qualifications,  the  idea,  if  we  may  say 
so,  grows  on  the  writer's  mind  till  the  more  ancient  in- 
stitution, which  on  first  view  might  appear  a  rude,  irregular, 
and  every  way  inferior  species  of  priesthood,  quite  eclipses 
that  which  took  its  origin  under  the  law,  and,  in  accordance 
with  the  prophetic  oracle  in  the  110th  Psalm,  becomes  not 
only  a  High  priesthood,  but  the  highest  possible  priest- 
hood; the  ideally  perfect  order,  whose  specific  character- 
istics are  carefully  ascertained  by  laying  stress  on  the  min- 
utest particulars  recorded  concerning  Melchizedek;  nay, 
by  emphasizing  not  only  the  utterances,  but  even  the  si- 
lences, of  holy  writ  respecting  that  mysterious  character. 
The  name  of  that  ancient  priest  means,  king  of  righteous- 
ness; therefore  perfect  holiness  must  be  one  of  the  marks 
of  the  ideal  species  of  priesthood.  His  place  of  abode  was 
Salem,  which  means  peace;  therefore  the  appropriate  seat 
of  the  ideal  priest  is  the  region  of  celestial  bliss,  where  he 
is  raised  far  above  the  sin  and  misery  and  strife  which  mo- 
lest the  vale  of  Sodom  and  Gomorrah,  here  below.  Mel- 
chizedek was  a  king  as  well  as  a  priest,  king  of  Salem  while 
priest  of  the  Most  High  God;  therefore  the  ideal  priest  must 
be  a  priest  sitting  on  a  throne  in  regal  dignity  and  glory. 
Finally,  the  history  makes  no  mention  of  Melchizedek's 
parentage,  birth,  or  death;  therefore  the  ideal  priesthood 
is  one  which,  unlike  the  Levitical,  has  no  dependence  on 
descent,  and  which  in  its  nature  and  its  effects  is  eternal} 

1  Heb.  vii.  !-•*. 


:S4  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

These  being  the  notes  of  that  species  of  priesthood  whereof 
there  can  be  but  one  sample,  it  is  manifest  that  Christ,  as 
the  Melchizedek  priest,  properly  enters  on  His  office  when 
He  has  gone  successfully  through  His  curriculum  of  temp- 
tation in  the  earthly  school  of  virtue;1  when  He  is  raised 
higher  than  the  heavens,  thoroughly  proved  to  be  a  holy, 
harmless,  undefiled  Man,  separate  in  character  from  sin- 
ners;2 when  He  takes  His  place  as  a  king  on  the  right  hand 
of  God,  in  the  country  of  peace,  the  heavenly  Salem; 8  when 
He  has  passed  out  of  the  time-world  into  the  eternal,  where 
there  is  no  distinction  between  yesterday  and  to-day,  and 
where  priestly  functions  have  absolute  eternal  validity.4 

Such,  accordingly,  is  the  representation  given  in  the 
Epistle  of  the  priesthood  of  Christ,  viewed  as  the  Antitype 
of  Melchizedek.  But  is  quite  otherwise  when  the  point  of 
view  changes,  from  the  primitive  institution  in  ancient  Salem, 
to  the  legal  priesthood  in  Israel.  Jesus  as  the  Great  High 
Priest  exercises  His  office  only  in  heaven:  as  the  High 
Priest,  as  a  Priest  after  the  fashion  of  Aaron,  He  exercised 
His  office  on  earth,  and  continued  to  exercise  it  when  He 
ascended  into  heaven.  As  a  Priest  after  the  order  of 
Aaron,  He  offered  Himself  a  sacrifice  on  the  cross,  even  as 
Aaron  offered  the  victim  on  the  altar  on  the  great  day  of 
atonement;  as  a  Priest  after  the  same  order,  He  presented 
Himself  in  His  humanity  before  His  Father  in  heaven,  even 
as  Aaron  carried  the  blood  of  the  slain  victim  within  the 
veil,  into  the  presence  of  Jehovah.  Then  and  there  the 
one  species  of  priesthood  became  merged  or  transformed 
into  the  other  higher,  highest  ideal  species:  the  priesthood 

1  Heb.  v.  10:  IJpoday opsvbEiS  vno  vov  Osov  dpxiEpEvS  Kara.  xr)v 
TOCciv  MeXxioeSek  —  as  it  were,  saluted  by  that  name  on  entering  heaven. 

Heb.  vii.    26:  "OdioS,   dnaxoi,   djuiavzoS,   KExoopi6aEvoi   dnd    zc3v 
dua(jTOoXav,  uai  vipr/Xozspoi  zcov  ovpavaHv  yei'ousvoi. 

3  Heb.  x.  12:  OvzoS  8e,  juiav  vitsp  dpiapziooy  7tpo6EVEyxai  0v6iav 
etS  to  ditjvEHSi,  Im<xQi6£v  ev  S Ecia  zov  Qsov — sat  down  a  king-priest,  in 
contrast  to  the  legal  priests,  who  stand  daily  ministering  and  offering  oftentimes 
the  same  sacrifices,  which  can  never  take  away  sins.  What  a  pathetic  picture  of 
the  sacerdotal  drudge  labouring  as  in  a  treadmill  at  the  bootless  work  of  offering 
his  tale  of  victims, — ever  offering,  never  doing  any  real  effectual  service, — till  death 
came  to  relieve  the  melancholy  official,  and  make  his  place  vacant  for  a  successor  ! 

4  Heb.  vii.  16:  "O5  ov  Hard  vojiov  IvzoArjS  6apuivy]%  ysyorEv ,  d\Xd 
■Mara  8wa/.iiv  ZGor/S  duocTaXiTov. 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  285 

exercised  in  humiliation,  into  the  priesthood  associated  with 
regal  dignity  and  glory:  the  priesthood  whose  functions 
were  performed  by  one  compassed  with  and  unreservedly 
confessing  infirmity,  into  the  priesthood  of  one  who,  Himself 
abiding  in  the  City  of  peace,  yet  hath  an  undying  sympathy 
with  the  tempted  and  war-worn,  and  is  ever  ready  to  come 
to  their  succour  with  bread  and  wine;  the  priesthood  whose 
one  great  achievement  was  the  love-offering  on  Calvary, 
into  the  priesthood  of  an  endless  life,  which  gives  to  that 
historic  work  absolute  perennial  value.1 

The  other  question  naturally  arising  out  of  foregoing  dis- 
cussions has  reference  to  the  reconcilability  of  the  doctrine, 
that  Christ  underwent  a  process  of  perfecting,  with  His 
sinlessness,  or,  in,  other  words,  to  the  possibility  of  a  sin- 
less development.  Prima  facie,  the  two  ideas  of  sinlessness 
and  moral  growth  seem  mutually  incompatible,  and  one  is 
disposed  to  assume  it  as  axiomatically  certain,  that  the 
imperfect  or  the  incomplete  has  necessarily  the  nature  of 
evil.  As  an  axiom,  accordingly,  this  position  was  advanced 
by  Cyril  against  the  Nestorian  doctrine,  that  Jesus  was 
gradually  perfected  for  His  office,  as  taught  by  hi*s  Nestorian 
opponents.  Can  any  one  doubt,  he  triumphantly  asked, 
that  whatever  comes  short  of  the  perfection  of  virtue  is 
blameworthy,  and  therefore  sinful  ?  ■  It  was  a  position 
easy  to  take  up,  extremely  plausible,  and  fitted  to  ensure 
for  the  party  whose  cause  it  supported  an  immediate  con- 
troversial advantage.  And  yet  even  Cyril  might  have 
dogmatized  less  confidently  on  this  point,  had  he  asked 
himself  the  question,  What  would  have  been  the  moral 
history  of  a  holy  child  of  Adam  in  case  there  had  been  no 
fall  ? — a  case  which  he  would  not  have  refused  to  regard  as 

1  Vid.  on  the  history  of  this  controversy,  Riehm,  Der  Lehrbegriff  des  Hebraer- 
briefes,  p.  466,  where  also  will  be  found  a  good  statement  of  the  solution  of  the 
difficulty,  in  substantial  agreement  with  that  given  above.  Vid.  also  Hofmann, 
Schriftbeweis,  vol.  ii. 

2  Adv.  Nestoriu?n,  p.  153:  ZZ&Js  av  r/  itohsv  kvdota6sis  TiS,  oti  ro  r/yap- 
rrjxoi  xov  TsXsiooi  e'xovroS  nard  dpsxrjv ,  vito  nwuov  edrai,  xai  ovx 
sis  aitav  Ts0av/ua6/u£vov,  jitdXXov  Ss  zdxcc  itov  xai  vito  ypaq>rjv 
duapTia*.  Also  contra  Theodoret.  Anath.  x.  p.  444:  Ei  TsXslrai  xatf  dps- 
ri)v,  t%  drsXovi  drjXovori,  xai  iv  xpovaj  ysyovs  rs'XsioS'  to  Ss  drsXsi 
aitav  siS  dpsvrjv,  vno  fxoouov  ypaq>rjv  to  Si  vito jugo/uov,  v(p'  d/.iap- 
xiav.     HqdZ  ow  yiypanzai  nspi  avxov  ori  'AjuapTiav  ovx  kitoiT]6s; 


286  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

a  possibility.  Such  a  child  would  certainly  have  undergone 
a  process  of  real  growth  in  wisdom  and  goodness,  keeping 
pace  with  his  growth  in  physical  stature.  If  so,  then  the 
sinlessness  of  His  human  nature  was  no  reason  why  Jesus 
should  not  experience  a  similar  process  of  growth.  If  the 
growth  predicated  of  Him  in  the  gospel  history  was,  as 
Cyril  strenuously  maintained,  not  real  but  doketic,  exhibi- 
tive  merely,  the  reason  lay  not  in  the  absence  of  sin,  but  in 
the  presence  of  the  divine  nature — i.e.  it  was  metaphysical, 
not  ethical.  Even  if  that  reason  were  valid,  its  effect  would 
not  be  to  settle  the  question  as  to  the  possibility  of  a  sinless 
moral  development,  but  simply  to  make  the  case  of  Christ 
exceptional.  The  ethical  problem  would  still  remain,  and 
might  be  discussed  without  reference  to  the  peculiar  case  of 
incarnate  Deity,  in  reference  to  the  hypothetical  case  of  an 
unfallen  child  of  Adam,  yea,  even  in  reference  to  the  real 
case  of  unfallen  Adam  himself.  Adam  before  his  fall  was 
sinless;  but  was  he  perfect  ?  If  he  was,  how  did  he  fall  so 
easily  before  what  appears  a  slight  temptation  ?  If  a  state 
so  insecure  was  perfection,  how  shall  we  characterize  that 
state  of  stable  moral  equilibrium,  in  which  the  subject  is 
temptation-proof  ?  Manifestly,  whether  we  be  able  specula- 
tively to  justify  it  or  not,  we  must  at  least  recognise  as 
real,  the  distinction  between  moral  integrity  and  moral  per- 
fection: the  former  expression  denoting  the  initial  state  of 
a  being  free  from  sinful  inclination  and  habits,  but  liable  to 
temptation  and  to  the  possibility  of  falling;  the  latter  signi- 
fying the  final  state  of  the  same  being  after  he  has  success- 
fully passed  through  his  curriculum  of  temptation,  and  has 
become  morally  infallible. 

An  aid  to  faith  in,  if  not  to  a  speculative  comprehension  of, 
this  distinction,  may  be  found  in  the  analogy  of  physical 
nature.  In  the  physical  world,  growth  by  stages  is  the  law. 
There  is  first  the  blade,  then  the  green  ear,  then  the  ripe 
corn  in  the  ear,  in  the  production  of  grain;  first  the  blos- 
som, then  the  crude  fruit,  then  the  ripe  fruit,  in  the  produc- 
tion of  the  apple  and  other  products  of  like  kind.  Christ 
Himself  has  taught  us,  in  one  of  His  parables,  that  the 
same  law  obtains  in  the  spiritual  world,  the  kingdom  of 
God.     There,  too,  both  in  the  commonwealth  at  large  and 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  287 

in  individual  citizens,  there  is  "  first  the  blade,  then  the  ear» 
after  that  the  full  corn  in  the  ear."1  It  is  true,  indeed,  that 
this  law  of  growth  ordinarily  applies  to  subjects  whose 
development  is  abnormal,  proceeding  from  a  state  of  sin  by 
a  very  chequered,  wayward  course,  to  a  state  of  Christian 
sanctity.  But  the  parallel  drawn  in  the  parable  between 
the  natural  and  the  spiritual  might  of  itself  teach  us,  that 
the  abnormality  of  the  development  is  not  the  cause  why 
the  law  of  gradual  growth  obtains  in  the  spiritual  sphere. 
In  nature,  abnormality  is  not  the  cause  of  growth,  but  sim- 
ply an  accident  to  which  it  is  liable,  owing  to  some  vice  in 
the  seed  or  tree,  or  to  the  unkindliness  of  the  seasons 
bringing  about  imperfect  or  retarded  development.  There 
is  no  reason  to  think  that  the  fact  is  otherwise  in  the  moral 
sphere.  Growth  there  also  is  normal;  the  abnormal  is 
stunted  retarded  growth,  due  partly  to  vice  of  nature,  partly 
to  the  influence  of  an  evil  world,  producing  fruit  inferior  in 
its  kind,  or  which  never  attains  to  ripeness.  Even  in  un- 
fallen  humanity  there  would  have  been  first  the  blossom, 
then  the  green  fruit,  then  the  ripe  fruit:  the  blossom  being 
the  state  of  integrity,  the  green  fruit  the  period  of  proba- 
tion, and  the  ripe  fruit  the  ultimate  condition  of  perfection 
contemplated  from  the  first,  and  at  length  arriving  "  in  its 
season."2  In  the  two  stages  preceding  the  last,  man  would 
have  been  imperfect,  yet  sinless.  Imperfect,  because  what 
his  Maker  looked  for,  and  what  the  law  or  ideal  of  his  being 
demanded, — the  end  to  which  all  preceding  stages  were 
means, — was  the  ripe  fruit  of  a  character  perfected  in 
wisdom  and  goodness,  by  adequate  trials  of  patience;  yet 
sinless,  because  God  and  the  law  of  His  being  demanded 
not  ripe  fruit  immediately ,  but  only  in  its  season.  To  be 
sinless,  it  is  enough  to  be  as  you  ought  at  each  season — to 
be  a  perfect  blade  at  the  blossoming  period,  a  perfect  green 
ear  at  the  earing  period,  and  a  perfect  stalk  of  ripe  grain 
at  the  season  of  harvest.  It  is  not  sin  to  come  short  of  the 
requirements  of  the  law  as  the  ideal:  sin  consists  in  coming 
short  of  the  requirements  of  the  duty  incumbent  on  me  in 
given   circumstances,   and  at   any  particular  stage   in  my 

1  Matt.  iv.  26-29. 
z  Ps.  i.  3- 


288  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

development.1  It  is  not  sin  in  childhood,  the  blossoming 
time  of  human  life,  to  think  and  speak  as  a  child,  and  to  be 
incapable  of  the  wisdom  and  moral  sense  of  manhood:  it  is 
enough  to  think  and  speak  as  a  holy,  innocent  child.  It  is 
not  sin  in  young-manhood,  the  time  of  the  green  ear,  to  be 
assailed  by  temptations  to  evil  conduct,  and  to  experience 
profound  embarrassment  in  connection  with  the  question, 
"  What  is  truth  ? "  It  is  enough  that  the  tempted  and  per- 
plexed youth  choose  aright  his  way  of  life,  preferring  the 
ways  of  holiness  and  of  faith  to  the  ways  of  pleasure  and  ot 
Pyrrhonism. 

How  far  the  metaphysical  consideration,  that  Christ  was 
a  divine  person,  is  a  valid  reason  for  denying  the  applica- 
bility to  Him  of  the  category  of  moral  development,  need 
not  here  be  discussed.  The  point  now  insisted  on  is,  that 
no  ethical  objection  to  the  application  arises  out  of  the  fact 
that  He  was  sinless.  It  was  possible  for  the  holy  One  to 
grow  in  grace,  advancing  gradually  from  the  fair  spring 
blossom  of  early  boyhood  to  the  ripe  fruit  of  perfect  man- 
hood. The  wisdom  of  the  boy  of  twelve  years  was  such  as 
could  not  be  excelled  at  that  time  of  life:  yet  it  was  but  a 
boy's  wisdom,  and  left  ample  room  for  expansion  in  all 
directions.  The  child  who  made  the  doctors  wonder  by 
His  quick  intelligence,  and  by  His  shrewd  questions  and 
answers,  could  not  then  have  preached  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.  The  piety  which  found  expression  in  the  words, 
"  Wist  ye  not  that  I  must  be  about  my  Father's  business  ? " 
was  a  presage  of  that  devotion  which  in  later  years  took 
for  its  motto,  "  My  meat  is  to  do  the  will  of  Him  that  sent 
me,  and  to  finish  His  work;"  yet  the  former  was  but  a 
blossom  of  instinctive,  half-conscious  filial  love,  while  the 
latter  was  that  blossom  slowly  ripened  into  a  deliberate  and 
passionate  self-consecration  to  a  divinely-appointed  task, 
whose  requirements  were  fully  understood.  Nor  was  Christ's 
moral  growth  completed  when  He  had  reached  mature 
manhood.     There  was  room  for  further  progress,  even  after 

1  See  Milller,  Christian  Doctrine  of  Sin,  vol.  i.  pp.  58-69,  where  the  problem 
of  1  sinless  development  is  solved  by  the  distinction  between  law  and  duty,  the 
latter  being  denned  as  "  the  determinate  moral  requirement  made  upon  a  given 
individual  at  a  given  moment  of  time." 


Christ  the  Subject  of  Temptation.  289 

He  left  the  home  of  His  childhood,  and  went  forth  to  enter 
upon  His  public  ministry.  His  baptism  in  the  Jordan 
formed  a  crisis  not  merely  in  His  outward  life,  but  in  His 
inward  spiritual  history.  At  that  point  He  entered  on  a 
new  phase  of  being,  in  which  He  was  to  learn,  through  con- 
tact with  the  world,  moral  lessons  which  could  not  be  got 
by  heart  in  the  seclusion  of  private  life.  Then  He  went  to 
school  to  become  experimentally  acquainted  both  with  hu- 
man wickedness  and  with  human  misery,  and  to  learn  to  suffer 
from  the  one  and  to  sympathize  with  the  other.  The  new 
discipline  in  wisdom  and  virtue  being  high  and  abstruse, 
the  Disciple  needed  a  heavenly  baptism  to  make  Him  an 
apt  scholar;  and  hence,  according  to  the  gospel  record,  the 
Spirit  -of  God  descended  upon  Him,  as  a  Spirit  of  truth,  a 
Spirit  of  self-sacrifice,  in  the  interest  of  righteousness,  and 
above  all,  as  a  Spirit  of  gracious  compassion  towards  suffer- 
ing humanity.  We  must  beware,  indeed,  of  exaggerating 
the  amount  of  learning  acquired  by  Jesus  after  His  entrance 
on  His  public  career,  following  the  example  of  those  nega- 
tive critics,  according  to  whom  the  Son  of  Mary  went  forth 
from  His  retirement  in  Galilee  with  the  vaguest  possible  no- 
tions of  what  He  was  going  to  do,  or  of  the  destiny 
awaiting  Him — ignorant  that  He  was  the  Messiah,  ignorant 
that  the  world  was  bad  enough  to  crucify  one  who  should 
bear  witness  against  its  evil;  conscious  only  of  great  powers 
stirring  within  Him,  and  unable  any  longer  to  bear  the 
inactivity  and  dulness  of  life  in  Nazareth.  Those  who  take 
this  view  have  not  sufficiently  considered  what  self-knowl- 
edge and  spiritual  insight  must  have  been  reached,  by  such 
a  one  as  even  sceptical  critics  admit  Jesus  to  have  been, 
during  the  long  period  of  privacy  which  the  Gospels  pass 
over  in  reverential  silence.  In  an  important  sense,  we  may 
regard  the  life  of  unbroken  stillness  between  twelve  and 
thirty  as  the  time  of  the  green  fruit,  between  the  blossom 
and  the  ripe  fruit;  and  the  whole  period  of  the  public 
ministry,  on  the  other  hand,  as  the  season  of  harvest,  in 
which  Christ  appeared  before  the  world  mature  in  all 
essential  respects — in  the  knowledge  of  Himself  and  of  men, 
in  purpose  as  the  Founder  of  the  divine  kingdom,  in  plans 
<br  the  execution  of  His  purpose,  in  zeal  for  righteousness. 


290  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

i  1  pity  for  the  sinful  and  the  miserable,  in  perception  of 
moral  and  spiritual  truth.  Sermons  on  the  Mount,  philam 
thropic  deeds,  withering  exposures  of  false  religious  pro- 
fession, apologies  for  receiving  sinners  full  of  poetry  and 
pathos,  the  doctrine  of  the  cross  as  the  means  of  the  world's 
redemption,  and  as  the  stern  law  of  life  for  Master  and 
disciple, — such  was  the  rich  and  varied  fruitage  of  the  brief 
harvest  season  for  which  the  preceding  lengthened  period 
of  silent  thought  and  hidden  communion  with  the  Father 
in  heaven  was  the  preparation.  By  the  time  Christ  entered 
on  His  public  career  His  education  was  complete,  so  far  as 
theoretic  knowledge  was  concerned.  But  it  is  one  thing  to 
know  by  contemplation ;  it  is  quite  another  to  know  by  experi- 
ence. Fully  equipped  for  His  ministry  of  righteousness  and 
love  at  the  outset,  Jesus  yet  learned  Himself  while  He  taught 
others;  learned  decision  by  temptation,  zeal  by  the  contra- 
diction of  sinners,  sympathy  by  contact  with  the  miserable, 
obedience  by  suffering. 


LECTURE  VII. 

THE   HUMILIATION    OF    CHRIST   IN  ITS    OFFICIAL    ASPECT. 

It  remains  now  to  consider  the  humiliation  of  Christ  on  its 
soteriological  or  official  side. 

The  apostle  represents  the  Son  of  God,  in  His  Incar- 
nation, as  taking  upon  Him  the  form  of  a  servant.  Our 
Lord,  on  a  memorable  occasion,  said  of  Himself,  "  I  am 
among  you  as  the  serving  man."  x  These  representations 
cover  the  whole  state  of  humiliation.  The  assumption  of 
servant-form  is  practically  synonymous  with  becoming 
man;  and  the  word  spoken  by  Jesus  to  His  disciples  at  the 
supper  table  might  be  taken  as  the  motto  of  His  whole  life 
on  earth.  From  first  to  last  He  was  among  men  as  He 
that  serveth.  Whose  servant  was  He  ?  God's  or  man's  ? 
Both.2  The  Servant  of  the  Lord  is  one  of  Messiah's  titles 
in  the  prophetic  Scriptures;  and  Jesus  said  of  Himself, 
"  The  Son  of  man  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto,  but  to 
minister,"  the  recipients  of  the  service  being  those  from 
whom  He  might  have  claimed  ministry.  Jesus  on  earth 
served  His  Father's  will  in  filial  loyalty,  and  man's  need  in 
lowly  love.  What  was  the  service  ?  It  has  many  names 
in  Scripture.  We  might  say  that  Christ's  task  was  to  found 
the  kingdom  of  God,  or  we  might  prefer  to  say  He  came  to 
save'  sinners;  or  we  might  combine  both  in  one  view, 
following   the   example  of  a   recent   writer,    who   regards 

»  Luke  xxii.  27,  gjS  6  StauovcSv. 

2  In  the  passage  in  Philippians,  the  Godward  reference  of  Christ's  service  seems 
to  be  mainly  in  view.  There  is  a  contrast  intended  between  the  position  of  equality 
with  God  renounced,  and  the  position  of  ^servant  assumed:  He  who  was  God's 
equal  btcame  God's  servant 


*92  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

Christianity  not  as  a  circle  with  one  centre,  but  rather  as 
an  ellipse  with  two  foci,  the  idea  of  the  kingdom  being  one, 
and  the  idea  of  redemption  being  the  other.1  For  the  pur- 
pose of  a  preliminary  definition,  it  will  suffice  to  adopt  the 
poetic  title  given  to  the  incarnate  Son  of  God  by  the  writer 
of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  to  call  Christ,  with  ref- 
erence to  His  work,  "  the  Captain  of  salvation." 

As  the  Captain,  Leader,  Author  of  salvation,  commissioned 
by  the  First  Cause  and  Last  End  of  all  to  conduct  many 
sons  to  glory,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  a  variety  of  duties 
or  offices  to  perform.  He  is  at  once  a  Prophet,  a  Priest, 
and  a  King.  The  former  two  of  these  three  offices  come 
most  prominently  into  view  in  His  state  of  humiliation. 
When  our  object  is  to  see  how  Christ  humbled  Himself  as 
the  servant  of  God  and  of  men,  we  have  to  consider  Him 
specially  as  the  Apostle  and  the  High  Priest  of  our  con- 
fession— that  is,  on  the  one  hand,  as  One  sent  forth  from 
God  to  speak  His  final,  full,  and  perfect  word  to  men;  and, 
on  the  other,  as  One  acting  for  men  in  things  pertaining  to 
God.  In  both  these  functions  Christ  acted  on  earth,  under 
appointment  of  the  great  First  Cause  and  Last  End,  and 
in  connection  with  both  He  experienced  humiliation.  Not 
that  the  offices  of  prophethood  and  of  priesthood  in  them- 
selves involve  humiliation,  for  Christ  exercises  them  both 
still,  in  His  state  of  exaltation.  Nor  did  the  reason  of  the 
humiliation  lie  in  this,  that  in  the  state  of  exinanition  these 
offices  were  severed  from  the  kingly  function,  by  union  with 
which  they  are  now  redeemed  from  indignity,  and  become  a 
royal  prophethood  and  a  royal  priesthood.  Christ  exer- 
cised both  offices,  even  when  on  earth,  as  a  King,  as  the 
Founder  and  Sovereign  of  the  kingdom  of  God.  To  the 
question  of  Pilate,  "  Art  thou  a  king  then  ?  "  the  Prophet 
of  Nazareth  replied,  "  I  am  a  King;  to  this  end  was  I  bom, 
that  I  should  bear  witness  unto  the  truth;  every  one  that 
is  of  the  truth  heareth  my  voice;"2  and  in  His  gracious  in- 
vitation to  the  wear)-,  the  meek  and  lowly  One  asked  them 
not  only  to  learn  of  Him,  but  to  take  His  yoke  upon  them. 
In  like  manner  Christ,  in  sacrificing  Himself  as  a  Priest, 

1  Ritschl,  Die  christliche  Lehre  von  der  Rechtfertigung  und  VersOhnung,  voL 
iii.  p.  6.  -  John  xviii.  17. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  293 

acted  as  a  King.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  He  spoke  before- 
hand of  this  very  act  of  self-sacrifice,  as  the  crowning  evi- 
dence that  He  came  not  to  be  ministered  unto.  But  this 
was  only  half  the  truth.  He  did  come  to  be  ministered 
unto,  and  He  exercised  His  ministry  of  love  as  a  means  to 
that  end.  That  was  the  way  He  took  to  get  a  kingdom, 
as  opposed  to  the  way  by  which  the  princes  of  the  world 
attain  sovereignty.  He  humbled  Himself  that  He  might 
be  exalted.  The  greatest  made  Himself  servant  with  an 
eye  to  lordship.  Not  in  the  offices  themselves,  then,  nor 
in  their  severance  from  the  regal  office,  did  the  cause  of 
humiliation  lie.  It  lay  in  this,  that  as  the  Apostle  of  our 
confession,  come  forth  from  God  to  reveal  Him  in  the  fulness 
of  His  grace  and  truth  unto  men,  Jesus  had  to  exercise  His 
personal  ministry  among  sinners;  and  that  as  the  High 
Priest  of  our  confession  He  had  to  exercise  His  earthly 
ministry  before  God,  not  only  among  sinners,  but  for  sin- 
ners, His  office  requiring  Him  to  act  as  their  representa- 
tive, to  be  in  all  things  like  His  constituents,  and  to  offer, 
in  their  name  and  behalf,  gifts  and  sacrifices  for  sins.  In 
the  state  of  exaltation,  the  offices  in  question  have  no  hu- 
miliating accompaniments,  because  the  prophetic  office  is 
exercised  by  deputy,  and  the  priestly  office  consists  in  a 
sympathetic  intercession  which  amounts  to  a  perpetual 
presentation  of  the  one  offering,  by  which  the  Sanctifier 
perfected  for  ever  them  that  are  sanctified.  It  may  be  in- 
structive to  follow  out  separately  the  two  lines  of  thought 
just  indicated,  and  to  regard  our  Lord's  humiliation,  first, 
as  incurred  in  connection  with  His  prophetic  office;  and 
secondly,  as  incurred  in  connection  with  His  priestly  office. 
By  pursuing  this  method,  we  may  hope  not  only  to  obtain 
a  somewhat  full  view  of  the  indignities  to  which  our  blessed 
Lord  was  subjected,  and  which  He  freely  underwent  as  the 
Captain  of  our  salvation,  but  also  to  find  legitimate  oppor- 
tunities for  noticing,  in  at  least  a  cursory  way,  the  various 
theoretic  view-points  from  which  the  work  of  redemption 
has  been  regarded.  The  method  now  proposed,  let  it  be 
further  observed,  will  not  involve  the  partition  of  the  Sav- 
iour's ministry  into  two  distinct  portions,  following  each 
other  in  historical  succession.     It  will  rather  mean,  look- 


294  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

mg  at  the  same  ministry  under  two  different  aspects,  in- 
volving to  a  considerable  extent  the  subsumption  of  the 
same  facts  under  different  categories,  and  the  explanation 
of  the  same  effects  by  different  causes. 

I.  First,  then,  let  us  consider  Christ  as  the  Apostle  of 
our  confession,  that  we  may  see  what  indignities  He  en- 
dured in  that  capacity 

Christ's  duty  as  the  Apostle  was  to  be  by  word,  deed, 
and  character,  the  revealer,  interpreter,  or  exegete  of  the 
Father  from  whose  bosom  He  came.  Into  that  duty  the 
Captain  of  salvation  threw  Himself  with  ardour,  as  the  gos- 
pel history  amply  proves,  and  as  is  specially  testified  by  the 
fourth  evangelist,  when  he  writes,  "  The  Word  was  made 
flesh,  and  dwelt  among  us,  full  of  grace  and  truth."  The 
divine  Apostle  by  whom  God  spoke  His  last  word  to  men 
was  faithful  to  Him  that  appointed  Him;  the  Prophet  like 
unto  Moses,  as  combining  the  offices  of  prophecy  and  gov- 
ernment, said,  eloquently  and  exhaustively,  those  things 
whereof  all  that  Moses  said  was  but  a  testimony.  The  law 
was  faithfully  given  by  Moses  to  Israel,  as  God  gave  it  to 
him  on  the  Mount;  but  grace  and  truth  became,  came  into 
being  through,  were  incarnated  in,  Jesus  Christ.1  Christ's 
fidelity,  as  the  minister  of  grace  and  truth,  was  absolute. 
Of  His  zeal  as  the  minister  of  truth  we  have  a  typical  ex- 
ample in  the  cleansing  of  the  temple,  which  recalled  to  the 
remembrance  of  the  disciples  the  word:  "  The  zeal  of  Thine 
house  hath  eaten  me  up;  "  2  and  of  His  devotion  as  the  min- 
ister of  grace  we  have  a  not  less  striking  example,  in  the 
interview  with  the  woman  of  Samaria,  at  the  close  of  which 
He  said  to  His  disciples  who  bade  Him  eat:  "  My  meat  is 
to  do  the  will  of  Him  that  sent  me,  and  to  finish  His  work."* 
Through  His  fidelity,  in  both  directions,  Jesus  brought  upon 
Himself  manifold  humiliations.     As  the  minister  of  grace, 

1  John  i.  17.  On  the  antithesis  between  l86rJTj  and  kyevsro  Godet  remarks: 
Le  regime  legal  etait  divin  par  son  origine;  le  regime  nouveau  l'est  par  son  origine 
et  par  son  essence.  Cette  superiorite  intrinseque  de  1'eVangile  expliq'ue  bien  l'an- 
tithese  de  edo^??  et  kyivtzo.  En  effet,  si  l'expression  a  eti  donnie  rappelait 
I'institution  exterieure  et  positive  de  la  loi,  le  terme  sont  venues  de\signe  avec  force 
l'cffusion  reelle  et  spontanee  de  la  source  divine  elle-meme,  jaillissant  a  flots  sur  la 
terre. — Commentaire  sur  L1  Evangile  de  Saint  Jean,  i.  p.  212. 

2  John  ii.  17.  3  John  iv.  34. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  295 

He  made  it  His  special  business  to  preach  the  gospel  to 
the  poor,  the  outcast,  the  morally  bad,  the  socially  dis- 
reputable; and  enthuasiasm  in  such  evangelistic  work 
brought  the  penalty  of  misunderstanding  and  reproach. 
Even  well-affected  persons,  like  the  Baptist,  stood  in  doubt 
concerning  the  validity  of  claims  to  be  the  Messiah,  made 
by  One  who  occupied  Himself  mainly  in  going  about  doing 
good;  for  John  expected  the  Christ  to  come  full,  not  of 
grace,  but  of  the  fury  of  the  Lord,  with  axe  or  fan  in  hand; 
and  when  the  event  disappointed  his  expectation,  he  sent 
a  doubting  message  of  inquiry  which  put  Jesus  on  His  de- 
fence, and  compelled  Him  to  criticise  His  own  forerunner 
that  men  might  know  what  value  to  put  on  his  present 
attitude,  and  might  not  be  offended  in  Himself.1  In  the 
same  love  for  the  vile,  the  ill-affected  found  ample  materials 
for  scandalous  misconstruction.  They  called  Jesus,  with  a* 
sneer,  "  the  friend  of  publicans  and  sinners;"  they  asked,. 
in  a  tone  of  sinister  insinuation,  "  Why  eateth  He  with; 
such  ? " — they  answered  their  own  question  by  a  reckless 
charge  of  gluttony  and  drunkenness.  The  nickname,  the 
uncharitable  query,  the  dishonourable  imputation  of  the 
evil-minded,  once  more  put  the  Apostle  of  divine  mercy 
on  His  defence,  and  subjected  Him  to  the  humbling  neces- 
sity of  making  an  apology  for  this  strange  unheard-of  love 
to  the  sinful;  the  apology  itself  being  not  less  surprising 
than  the  conduct  apologized  for,  expressing  in  a  few  choice 
sentences  the  quintessence  of  the  gospel,  and  breathing  in 
every  word  the  spirit  of  One  who  was  verily  not  ashamed 
to  call  the  vilest  of  mankind  His  brethren.2  It  might  have 
been  expected  that  the  miracles  wrought  by  the  divine 
Evangelist  would  have  protected  His  character  from  assault, 
and  saved  Him  the  trouble  of  explaining  His  aims  and 
motives.  Instead  of  doing  this,  however,  they  only  stimu- 
lated the  wits  of  the  unbelieving,  to  invent  a  theory  which 
should  deliver  them  from  the  necessity  of  accepting  an 
unwelcome  conclusion,  and  drove  them  on  from  the  par- 
donable sin  of  speaking  evil  and  uncharitable  words  against 
the  Son  of  man,  to  the  very  brink  of  the  unpardonable 
wickedness  of  blaspheming  the  Holy  Ghost,  by  ascribing 

1  Matt.  xi.  1— 1 1.  2  Matt.  ix.  10-13;  Luke  vii.  36-50;  Luke  xv. 


296  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

to  Satanic  agency,  works  wherein  no  ingenuous  mind  could 
fail  to  recognise  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God.1 

While  ever  intent  on  His  ministry  of  grace,  Jesus  did  not 
forget  the  other  part  of  His  commission,  that,  viz.,  of  bear- 
ing witness  unto  the  truth.  The  two  duties  were  in  fact 
interwoven,  each  with  the  other.  In  seeking  the  lost,  and 
bringing  nigh  to  them  the  grace  of  God,  the  Saviour  was 
bearing  witness  in  action  to  a  very  important  truth,  viz., 
that  true  holiness  does  not  separate  itself  from  the  unholy, 
and  that  any  holiness  which  takes  the  form  of  exclusiveness 
is  a  heartless,  hypocritical  counterfeit.  It  was  this  well- 
understood  didactic  meaning,  embodied  in  His  conduct, 
that  was  the  real  source  of  offence.  The  Pharisees,  who 
were  essentially  men  of  the  coterie  in  their  religion,  saw 
at  a  glance  that,  in  the  manner  of  life  followed  by  Jesus,  a 
new  type  of  holiness  totally  diverse  from  their  own  was 
revealing  itself,  and  their  instincts  of  self-preservation  and 
self-complacency  forthwith  took  alarm.  Hence  arose  in 
their  minds,  at  a  very  early  period,  an  intense  dislike  of 
the  Prophet  of  Galilee.  The  men  of  that  generation  were 
indeed  to  be  pitied.  God  in  His  bounty  had  sent  them  two 
prophets,  neither  of  whom  was  at  all  to  their  taste;  not 
John,  because  he  separated  himself  in  disgust  from  those 
who  thanked  God  they  were  not  as  other  men,  and  with 
blunt  sincerity  tore  off  the  mask  with  which  they  hid  their 
true  character;  not  Jesus,  because  He  was  so  genial  and 
sunny,  so  full  of  the  gladness  of  One  who  felt  Himself 
anointed  to  preach  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord,  and, 
in  the  exuberance  of  His  love,  so  utterly  disregardful  of 
the  conventional  barriers  which  separated  the  good  from 
the  bad,  the  holy  from  the  profane.  Though  He  had  done 
no  more  than  simply  allow  it  to  appear  that  He  was  full 
-of  grace,  such  an  one  as  Jesus  would  have  borne  a  witness 
to  the  truth  emphatic  enough,  to  give,  without  fail,  decided 
offence  to  men  full  only  of  spiritual  pride  and  conceit. 

But  Jesus  did  much  more  than  this.     While  scrupulously 

•  careful  not  to  give  unnecessary  offence,  He  did  not  conceal 

God's  righteousness,  in  fear  lest  prejudiced  or  evil-minded 

imen  should  take  offence  when  none  was  intended.     He  \ised 

3    Matt.  XII.    22-,2. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  297 

to  the  utmost  the  wide  liberty  of  the  prophet,  and,  as 
occasion  offered,  applied  the  plummet  of  truth  to  the  whole 
life  of  His  time:  pronouncing  current  religious  profession  to 
be  worthless  and  even  pernicious,  as  amounting  in  effect  to 
the  making  void  of  God's  law  by  the  traditions  of  men; 
solemnly  declaring,  in  set  discourse,  that  the  righteous- 
ness of  the  Scribes  was  not  a  passport  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven;  and  placing  the  qualifications  of  citizenship  in  at- 
tributes totally  diverse  from  those  exhibited  in  the  Pharisaic 
character — in  humility,  godly  sorrow,  soul  hunger  for  right- 
eousness still  unattained,  purity  of  heart,  meekness,  charity, 
and  fidelity  to  God  and  duty,  at  all  hazards.  From  such 
speech  offences  were  sure  to  arise,  and  they  did  arise.  He 
who,  by  His  devotion  as  the  minister  of  grace,  had  brought 
on  Himself  the  "  indignities  of  the  world,"  in  the  form  of 
nicknames,  calumnies,  irreverent,  disrespectful  criticism, 
which  compelled  Him  to  defend  Himself  at  the  bar  of 
public  opinion  like  any  ordinary  son  of  man,  did  also,  by 
His  fearless  zeal  as  the  minister  of  truth,  provoke  against 
Himself  the  bitter,  determined  "contradiction  of  sinners." 
Therefore  He  had  to  give  His  back  to  the  smiters,  and  His 
cheeks  to  them  that  plucked  off  the  hair,  and  His  face  to 
shame  and  spitting.1  He  heard  the  defaming  of  many,  fear  on 
every  side;  His  speeches  were  reported  by  spies;  His  neigh- 
bours watched  for  His  halting,  saying,  "  Peradventure  He 
will  be  enticed,  and  we  shall  prevail  against  Him,  and  we 
shall  take  our  revenge  on  Him." 2  His  death  was  the 
natural  climax  and  crowning  instance  of  the  contradiction 
provoked  by  His  inextinguishable  zeal  for  righteousness. 
To  such  a  length  did  the  contradiction  go;  even  to  the  in- 
fliction of  the  cross,  with  all  its  pain  and  shame.  We  need 
not  hesitate,  out  of  regard  to  the  higher  meanings  of  our 
Lord's  death,  to  acknowledge  this  as  an  historical  fact. 
Whatever  more  that  death  meant,  it  meant  this  at  least:  the 
witness  for  truth  suffering  for  His  fidelity  in  that  capacity. 
He  had  borne  witness  for  three  short  years;  men  could  en- 
dure Him  no  longer,  and  that  was  the  way  they  took  to 
get  rid  of  Him.     He  had  told  them  what  true  righteousness 

'  Isa.  1.  6. 
«  ler.  xx.  10. 


298  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

was;  He  had  opposed  morality  to  ritualism,  charity  to 
pride,  the  fear  of  God  to  the  traditions  of  men,  the  reality 
of  spiritual  worship  to  the  shadows  of  ceremonialism,  hu- 
mility to  ostentation;  He  had  proclaimed  the  advent  of  a 
divine  kingdom  based  on  these  contrasts  as  its  foundations; 
He  had  announced  Himself  as  the  King,  not  only  God's 
servant,  but  God's  Son,  the  Hope  of  those  who  waited  for 
the  consolation  of  Israel;  and  the  cross  was  the  world's 
reply.  In  this  light  our  Lord  Himself  presented  His  ap- 
proaching death  to  His  disciples,  when  first  He  began  to 
speak  to  them  unreservedly  concerning  it.  What  He  said 
to  them  in  effect  was  this:  "  I  am  destined  to  be  a  martyr 
to  the  truth;  I  must  suffer  for  righteousness'  sake.  The 
elders,  chief  priests,  and  scribes  hate  me,  and  ere  long  they 
will  kill  me.  I  cannot  escape  this  doom,  except  by  unfaith- 
fulness— by  resolving  henceforth  from  prudential  consid- 
erations to  speak  no  more  in  God's  name;  which  I  cannot 
do,  for  His  word  is  like  a  fire  in  my  bones,  and  I  can- 
not refrain." ' 

Such  is  a  hasty  sketch  of  the  humiliation  endured  by 
Christ  in  connection  with  His  prophetic  office.  Now  some 
are  content  with  this  as  a  full  account  of  the  matter,  and 
see  no  need  for  any  other  way  of  explaining  our  Lord's 
sufferings  on  earth,  than  to  regard  these  as  the  natural 
inevitable  results  of  the  faithful  discharge  of  His  duty  as 
the  Apostle  of  our  confession.  To  such  Christ  is  the  Cap- 
tain of  salvation  simply  as  the  revealer  of  God,  of  His  grace, 
of  His  truth,  of  the  perfect  ideal  of  human  character,  of  the 
way  of  life  that  is  God-pleasing;  as  the  example  of  faith, 
patience,  fidelity,  fortitude;  as  the  companion  of  those  who 
imitate  His  example  in  the  tribulations  which  inevitably 
come  on  all  the  good  in  this  evil  world;  as  their  fellow- 
combatant  in  the  warfare  of  life,  their  military  comrade,  so 
to  speak;  as  the  leader  of  faithful  souls,  and  guide  of  all 
that  travel  to  the  sky,  teaching  them  to  despise  and  tri- 
umph over  all  the  troubles  of  life,  making  them  willing  to 
bear  a  cross  which  has  been  borne  before  by  their  Master, 
and  inspiring  them  with  invincible  courage  by  the  sure  and 
certain  hope  of  everlasting  life,  begotten  in  their  hearts  by 

1  Matt.  xvi.  21-28;  Jer.  xx.  9. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  299 

the  well-authenticated  fact  of  His  own  resurrection  from 
the  dead.  On  this  view,  the  death  of  Christ  is  simply  an 
incident  in  His  career,  a  mortal  yet  not  mortal  wound 
received  in  battle;  not  the  real  ground  of  forgiveness  or 
admission  to  heaven,  but  simply  the  antecedent  to  an  event 
of  still  more  importance,  the  resurrection,  which  moves 
men  to  live  good  lives,  and  so  to  commend  themselves  to 
a  God  who,  as  a  matter  of  course,  forgives  all  who  repent 
and  indulgently  accepts  an  imperfectly  yet  substantially 
good  life,  as  if  it  were  perfect.  Not  that  the  sufferings  of 
Christ  are  to  be  treated  as  of  no  moment.  By  no  means: 
it  was  worthy  of  God  to  make  His  appointed  Captain  of 
salvation  perfect  through  suffering.  It  was  a  signal  proof 
both  of  His  love  and  of  His  wisdom.  Of  His  love,  because 
in  Christ,  now  exalted  to  heavenly  glory,  and  having  the 
keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  in  His  hands,  but  once  a 
suffering  man  like  ourselves,  He  hath  given  us  a  Saviour 
who,  having  fully  experienced  all  the  evils  to  which  we  are 
liable,  is  able  to  sympathize  with  us  and  willing  to  succour 
us.  Of  His  wisdom,  because  the  curriculum  of  suffering 
through  which  He  appointed  the  Saviour  to  pass  was  con- 
gruous to  the  vocation  of  the  latter.  It  is  fit  that  a  cap- 
tain should  have  full  experience  of  military  hardships:  no 
one  can  be  a  good  captain  on  any  other  terms.  How  can 
He  lead  an  army  to  victory  and  glory,  who  shirks  the 
risks  of  battle  and  the  privations  of  the  campaign  ?  He 
who  would  be  a  Joshua  to  the  Lord's  host  must  lead  the 
way  in  every  peril.  This,  accordingly,  our  Joshua  did. 
He  drank  of  the  brook  by  the  way,  thirsty  and  weary 
through  the  toil  of  the  conflict.  Therefore  He  is  a  good 
captain,  well  fitted  to  lead  the  Lord's  host  to  glory.  Having 
descended  personally  into  the  scene  of  strife,  and  become 
Himself  a  combatant,  and  stood  in  the  very  forefront  of 
the  battle,  He  draws  us  on  to  glory,  honour,  and  immor- 
tality by  the  inspiration  of  His  example.  With  a  li'ght 
heart  we  endure  hardships,  and  confront  trials,  which  our 
heroic  Leader  has  encountered  before  us.  Looking  unto 
Jesus,  the  author  and  the  perfecter  of  faith,  who  for  the  joy 
that  was  set  before  Him  endured  the  cross,  despising  the 
shame,  and  is  set  down  at  the  right  hand  of  the  throne  of 


300  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

God,  we  resist  unto  blood,  striving  against  sin,  and  so  gain 
admittance  into  the  eternal  kingdom.1 

While  readily  acknowledging  that  important  elements  of 
truth  are  contained  even  in  this  scheme  of  thought,  we  can- 
not possibly  regard  as  complete  any  theory  of  the  Saviour's 
work  which  considers  Him  simply  as  the  Apostle,  and  not 
also  as  the  High  Priest,  of  our  confession.  That  the  So- 
cinian  theory,  just  sketched,  as  good  as  ignores  Christ's 
priestly  office,  is  manifest.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  that 
theory  does  ascribe  to  the  Saviour  a  priestly  function  in 
His  state  of  exaltation.  But  what  does  that  function 
amount  to  ?  Simply  to  this,  that  the  man  Jesus,  exalted 
to  God's  right  hand,  and  constituted  a  semi-Deity,  has  a 
fellow-feeling  for  us,  His  brethren,  which  moves  Him  to 
use  the  power  conferred  upon  Him  for  our  advantage.  We 
have  in  heaven  an  influential  friend  in  the  shape  of  a  man, 
wearing  our  nature,  who  once  passed  through  a  curriculum 
of  temptation  and  suffering  similar  to  that  appointed  to 
other  men;  who  therefore  is  always  disposed  to  take  our 
part  and  to  succour  our  weakness,  to  view  our  conduct  in- 
dulgently, and  notwithstanding  many  defects,  to  admit  us 
into  His  eternal  kingdom.  The  priestly  office  is,  in  fact, 
substantially  identical  with  the  kingly  office  conferred  by 
God  on  the  man  Jesus,  that  we  erring  sinful  men  might 
have,  in  Him,  one  qualified  by  His  own  experience  to  be  a 
lenient  judge  and  a  sympathetic  patron.  That  such  a  rep- 
resentation comes  short  of  the  scriptural  view  of  Christ's 
priesthood  hardly  needs  to  be   proved.     To  do  justice  to 

1  The  above  train  of  thought  embodies  the  substance  of  the  following  passage 
from  the  De  Servatote  of  Socinus:  Neque  enim  parum  refert,  nos,  qui  Christo 
fidem  habemus,  et  ejus  praeceptis  obedimus,  scire,  eum  ipsum,  qui  vindicem  et 
assertorum  nostrum  se  constituit,  potestatem  habere  eadjona  omnia  nobis  largiendi 
quae  sibi  obedientibus  ita  constanter  promisit.  Praesertim  cum  earn  viam  ipse 
prior  ingressus,  quam  nos  tenere  jussit,  omnia  mala  expertus  sit  quae  nobis,  dum 
per  earn  gradimur,  et  ilium  sequimur,  aut  eveniunt,  aut  certe  evenire  possunt;  adeo 
ut  tanquam  nostri  mali  non  ignarus  misereri  nostrum  vere  possit,  et  nobis  miseris 
succurrere  didicerit.  .  .  .  O  admirabilem  Dei  bonitatem  atque  sapientiam  !  Non 
satis  illi  fuit  nos  hostes  suos,  ac  desertores,  scelerum  nostrorum  gratuita  venia,  et 
vitae  aeternae  amplissimo  promisso  ad  se  iterum  recipere,  atque  convertere;  nisi 
etiam  ipsius  vitae  aeternae  nobis  largiendae  potestatem  fratri  nostro,  et  tantaa 
ealutis  duci  ac  principi  a  se  constituto,  quern  per  afflictiones  perfectum  reddidit, 
plenissimam  concederet. — Pars  prima,  cap.  ri. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  301 

that  aspect  of  His  work  as  the  Captain  of  salvation,  we 
must  consider  Him  as  the  High  Priest  of  our  confession, 
not  merely  in  His  state  of  exaltation,  but  also  in  His  state 
of  humiliation;  not  only  in  the  vague  sentimental  sense  of 
being  our  sympathetic  Brother  on  high,  who  presents  His 
earthly  experience  as  a  plea  why  He  should  be  allowed  to 
exercise  a  partial  and  indulgent  sway  over  such  as  consent 
to  be  His  subjects,  but  in  the  strict,  definite,  substantial 
sense  of  being  our  representative  before  God,  and  offering 
gifts  and  sacrifices  for  our  sins. 

2.  Proceeding  then  to  consider  Christ  as  the  High  Priest 
of  our  confession,  that  we  may  see  what  humiliation  He 
had  to  endure  in  that  capacity,  I  remark,  that  we  place 
ourselves  in  the  best  position  for  understanding  this  part 
of  our  subject,  by  starting  from  the  principle  enunciated  by 
the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  in  these  words: 
"  Both  He  that  sanctifieth  and  they  who  are  sanctified  are 
all  of  one."  The  Captain  of  salvation  is  here  call  the  Sanc- 
tifier,  with  special  if  not  exclusive  reference  to  His  priestly 
office.  It  is  not  necessary  to  deny  that  the  title  might 
legitimately  enough  be  applied  to  Christ,  as  Grotius  held1 
it  to  be,  in  fact,  applied  here,  with  reference  to  His  moral 
power  over  men  through  His  teaching  and  example.  Nor 
can  we  deny  that,  when  the  title  is  understood  in  that  sense, 
the  principle  laid  down  contains  an  obvious  and  important 
truth.  One  who  is  to  be  a  sanctifier  in  the  ethical  sense — 
that  is,  who  is  to  make  the  unholy  personally  holy — must 
be  one  in  some  respects  with  those  whom  he  is  to  sanctify.. 
The  very  separateness  in  character,  between  the  parties,, 
makes  it  necessary  that  in  some  sense  they  should  be  one. 
There  must  be  a  point  of  contact  somewhere,  else  the  one 
cannot  act  on  the  other;  and  it  is  evident  that  the  more 
points  of  contact  the  better.  The  liker  the  sanctifier  is  to 
those  whom  he  is  to  sanctify,  and  who  are  morally  his  un- 
like, the  greater  his  influence  for  good  upon  them.  He  who 
is  in  all  possible  respects  like  unto  his  brethren,  will  mani- 
festly have  more  power  over  them  than  one  who  is  like  them 
in  only  one  or  two  points.  The  one  acts  like  a  mighty 
force  brought  to  bear  directly  on  an  inert  mass,  so  as  to  set 
it  in  motion;  the  other  glides  past,  just  grazing  the  mass 


302  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

and  leaving  it  where  it  was.  Hence,  in  order  to  be  a  sane- 
tifier  even  in  a  moral  sense,  it  behoved  Jesus,  the  holy 
One,  to  be  in  all  possible  respects  like  His  unholy  brethren; 
for  in  this  sense  the  sanctifying  power  of  Jesus  lies  in  His 
example,  His  character,  His  history  as  a  man.  He  makes 
us  holy  by  reproducing  in  His  own  life  the  lost  ideal  of  hu- 
man character,  and  bringing  that  ideal  to  bear  on  our 
minds  and  hearts.  But  the  ideal  can  be  brought  to  bear 
with  full  effect  only  when  it  is  realized  amid  circumstances 
as  like  as  possible  to  those  in  which  they  are  situated  whom 
it  is  designed  to  influence.  The  Ideal  must  be  an  ideal 
man,  bone  of  our  bone,  flesh  of  our  flesh,  the  Son  of  man; 
He  must  be  in  His  humanity  mere  man,  stripped  of  all  social 
advantages,  down  on  the  level  of  the  common  mass,  and 
presenting  there  the  ideal  of  excellence  amid  the  meanest 
surroundings;  He  must  be  a  tempted  man,  His  virtue  not  a 
thing  of  course,  but  a  real  battle  with  sin,  a  triumph  after 
a  bloody  struggle  over  all  the  forces  of  moral  evil. 

While  all  this  may  be  true,  however,  it  is  not  the  line  of 
thought  which  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  means  to  suggest, 
when  he  enunciates  the  principle,  that  the  Sanctifier  and 
the  sanctified  are  all  of  one.  He  calls  Christ  the  Sancti- 
fier, with  reference  to  His  office  as  the  High  Priest;  and 
the  work  he  ascribes  to  Him,  is  that  of  sanctifying  the  un- 
holy representatively,  so  that  on  account  of  what  He  does 
they  are  esteemed  holy  in  God's  sight.  He  explains  his 
own  meaning  further  on,  when  he  speaks  of  Christians  as 
sanctified  through  the  offering  of  the  body  of  Jesus  Christ 
once  for  all,  and  calls  the  blood  of  Christ  the  blood  of  the 
covenant  wherewith  we  are  sanctified,  and  represents  Jesus 
as  suffering  without  the  gate,  that  He  might  sanctify  the 
people  with  His  own  blood.1  In  the  immediately  follow- 
ing context,  indeed,  he  indicates  with  sufficient  clearness 
the  nature  of  the  service  rendered  by  the  Sanctifier,  by  the 
significant  expression,  "to  make  reconciliation  for  (to  ex- 
piate) the  sins  of  the  people."  But  here,  it  is  worthy  of 
notice,  the  author  applies  his  principle  not  only  to  the  work 
of  the  Sanctifier,  but  to  His  qualifications  for  the  work. 
"Wherefore,"  he  writes,  "in  all  things  it  behoved  Him  to 

1  Heb,  x.  10,  29,  xiii.  12. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  303 

be  made  like  unto  His  brethren,  that  He  might  be  a  merci- 
ful and  trustworthy  High  Priest  in  things  pertaining  to 
God,  to  make  reconciliation  for  the  sins  of  the  people."  1 
He  means  to  say,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  nature  of  the 
work  to  be  done  by  the  High  Priest  in  itself  involves  a  unity 
between  Him  and  those  for  whom  He  acts;  and  on  the 
other,  that  the  closer  the  union  between  the  High  Priest 
and  His  constituents,  the  better  fitted  is  He  for  His  office. 

There  are  thus  suggested  two  points  of  view  from  which 
we  may  regard  the  humiliation  of  Christ,  in  connection  with 
His  priestly  office, — viz.  either  as  a  discipline  by  which  He 
was  qualified  for  office,  or  as  suffering  endured  in  the  per- 
formance of  priestly  duty.  The  latter  aspect  is  by  far  the 
most  important;  but  before  treating  of  it,  it  may  be  well  to 
contemplate  the  subject  for  a  moment  under  the  former 
aspect. 

One  who  is  to  act  for  men  in  things  pertaining  to  God — 
in  so  supremely  important  a  matter  as  that  of  making  atone- 
ment for  sin — must  possess  the  confidence  of  his  constit- 
uents. If  he  is  not  trusted,  it  is  in  vain  that  he  transacts. 
Hence  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  is  careful 
to  point  out  the  qualities  by  which  a  high  priest  is  enabled 
to  gain  the  confidence  of  those  he  represents  in  holy  things. 
The  model  high  priest  is  photographed,  in  a  single  expres- 
sive phrase,  as  one  able  /nsvpionaQei'v* — to  have  compassion 
on  the  ignorant  and  erring,  able  to  restrain  the  tendency 
to  impatience  and  severity  towards  the  morally  weak.  This 
faculty  He  is  represented  as  acquiring  through  His  own 
experience  and  consciousness  of  infirmity,  which  makes  it 
necessary  that,  in  offering  for  the  people,  He  should  at  the 
same  time  offer  for  Himself.  The  purpose  of  the  represen- 
tation is  to  explain  to  the  Hebrew  Christians  the  rationale 
of  Christ's  humiliations,  of  the  temptations  and  the  sinless 
infirmities  He  experienced  in  the  days  of  His  flesh.  He 
says  to  them  in  effect:  "  View  Christ  as  a  High  Priest,  and 
you  will  at  once  perceive  the  congruity  of  His  experience 
to  His  office,  and  cease  to  find  in  the  former  a  stumbling- 
block.  You  know  what  sort  of  a  man  every  well-qualified 
nigh  priest  is.  Taken  from  among  men,  to  act  for  them  in 
1  Heb.  ii.  17.  s  Heb.  v.  2. 


304  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

holy  things, he  feels  himself  oneof  the  people;  accounts  even 
the  erring  and  the  ignorant,  for  whom  atonement  has  to 
be  made,  as  his  brethren;  is  patient  and  sympathetic 
towards  them,  and  checks  all  tendencies  to  impatience  by 
the  habitual  recollection  of  his  own  weakness,  which  his 
very  priestly  duties  do  not  suffer  him  to  forget.  Such  an 
High  Priest  it  behoved  Jesus  to  be  as  far  as  was  possible, 
without  sin.  Therefore  He  was  made  in  all  things  like  His 
brethren:  first  of  all,  like  them  in  possessing  their  humanity, 
for  He  could  not  be  a  High  Priest  for  men  unless  He  were 
taken  from  men;  then,  like  them,  further,  in  possessing  the 
sinless  infirmities  of  humanity,  and  in  being  through  these 
subject  to  temptations,  which  made  Him  ofttimes  feel  and 
confess  His  weakness.  Why  stumble  at  all  this  ?  why 
wonder  that  the  Son  of  God  should  become  man;  that  He 
should  be  a  humble-born  man,  one  of  the  people;  that 
He  should  be  a  tempted  man;  that  He  should  be  conscious 
of  weakness,  and  constrained  to  acknowledge  it,  as  when 
He  prayed,  "  If  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from  me  "  ? 
All  this  was  needful  for  one  destined  to  a  priestly  vocation; 
all  this  was  but  a  discipline  fitting  the  Captain  of  salvation 
for  being  a  merciful  and  trusty  High  Priest,  in  whose  fidelity 
all  can  put  implicit  confidence." 

It  thus  appears  that  we  have  scriptural  sanction  for  treat- 
ing the  sympathy  of  Christ  as  one  point  of  view  from  which 
to  contemplate  His  humiliation.  It  is  legitimate  to  say 
that  Christ's  experience  on  earth  was  due,  in  part  at  least, 
to  this,  that  it  behoved  one  who  had  His  work  to  do  to 
undergo  a  training  in  sympathy,  or  to  have  a  history  which 
afforded  opportunities  for  the  manifestation  of  sympathy 
already  existing.  The  High  Priest  of  humanity  must  learn 
to  sympathize;  or  if  He  do  not  need  to  learn,  He  must 
reveal  His  latent  sympathy  in  action  and  suffering.  In 
this  way  we  may  satisfactorily  enough  explain  to  ourselves 
some  outstanding  facts  in  our  Saviour's  life — as,  for  example, 
His  preference  for,  and  habitual  use  of,  the  designation 
Son  of  man,  and  His  ministry  of  healing.  Many  an  expla- 
nation of  the  name  Jesus  was  wont  to  give  Himself  has 
been  suggested;  but  it  seems  as  good  as  any  to  say  that 
He  called  Himself  by  preference  the  Son  of  man,  to  an- 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  305 

nounce  to  the  world  His  consciousness  of  brotherhood  with 
men,  the  humble,  homely  title  rising  to  His  lips  as  the 
spontaneous  utterance  of  the  human  sympathy  that  filled 
His  heart.1  Then,  if  we  ask  ourselves  why  it  was  that 
Jesus,  who  came  to  save  His  people  from  their  sins,  spent 
so  much  of  His  time  in  healing  the  bodies  of  the  sick,  how 
natural  the  suggestion  that  the  miracles  of  healing  were 
partly  the  artless  expression  by  kind  deeds  of  unutterable 
compassion,  and  partly  a  method  of  action  deliberately 
resolved  on  with  intent  to  gain  men's  confidence  for  higher 
ends  !  Is  not  the  former  part  of  the  suggestion,  at  least, 
borne  out  by  those  words  of  the  evangelist,  in  which  the 
miraculous  cures  wrought  by  Jesus  are  represented  as  a 
fulfilment  of  the  prophetic  oracle:  "Himself  took  our  in- 
firmities, and  bare  our  sicknesses  "  ? — the  thought  intended 
to  be  conveyed  obviously  being:  He  bore  man's  sicknesses 
on  His  mind  by  compassion,  and  so  He  healed  them  by 
His  divine  power. 

Thus  far  we  may  safely  go  in  treating  sympathy  as  one 
factor  in  the  process  whereby  the  Lord  Jesus  was  made  a 
man  of  sorrow,  acquainted  with  grief.  But  some,  not  con- 
tent with  the  recognition  of  sympathy  as  one  factor,  make 
it  all  in  all.  The  one  fact,  according  to  such,  necessary  to 
account  for  Christ's  whole  earthly  experience  is,  that  He 
loved  the  sinful  and  the  miserable  with  a  love  sympathetic, 
burden-bearing,  vicarious  in  character,  as  it  is  the  nature 
of  all  true  love  to  be.  This  sympathy  of  the  Son  of  God 
with  man  is  the  cardinal  unity  which  binds  together  Sanc- 
tifier  and  sanctified, — a  unity  fruitful  of  many  others,  and 
sufficiently  accounting  for  all.  Because  the  holy  One  was 
one  with  the  unholy,  in  the  first  place,  through  a  sym- 
pathetic love  whose  nature  it  is  to  identify  itself  in  all 
respects  with  the  object  loved,  therefore  He  was  not  only 
willing,  but  eager — nay,  under  a  kind  of  necessity — to  come 
into  their  lot.  Sympathetic  love  brought  Him  down  from 
heaven  to  earth;  and  given  proximity  of  situation,  fellow- 
ship in  suffering  followed  as  a  matter  of  course.  The  holy 
One  incarnate  became,  of  course,  in  lot  like  the  unholy,  in 
all  respects  possible  to  a  holy  being.  There  is  no  mystery 
1  For  the  sense  of  this  title,  see  Lect.  v.  p.  226. 


2,o 6  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

in  the  matter:  "  Understand  that  love  is  itself  an  essentially 
vicarious  principle,  and  the  solution  is  no  longer  difficult." ' 
Who  wonders  that  a  mother  suffers  with  and  for  her  sick 
child  ?  or  a  patriot  with  and  for  his  unhappy  country  ? 
Who  wonders  that  Nehemiah,  being  a  patriot,  left  the 
court  of  Persia  and  came  to  Jerusalem  when  its  walls  were 
lying  in  ruins  ?  and  that,  once  at  the  scene  of  desolation 
and  misery,  he  became  partaker  in  the  afflictions  of  the 
people,  their  fellow-labourer  in  rebuilding  the  ruined  walls 
— watching  when  they  watched,  fighting  when  they  fought, 
tempted  by  treacherous  foes  when  they  were  tempted,  pay- 
ing their  debts  and  redeeming  them  from  bondage,  when 
they  were  burdened  with  debt  and  sold  into  slavery  ?  The 
explanation  of  the  whole  is,  that  Nehemiah  loved  his 
country  with  a  love  which  was  essentially  vicarious,  just 
because  it  was  genuine.  In  like  manner,  why  wonder  that 
the  Son  of  God  visited  this  dark,  sinful,  wretched  world  by 
becoming  man,  and  that,  once  arrived  here,  He  experienced 
all  the  sinless  infirmities  of  human  nature,  the  privations 
and  indignities  of  a  mean  outward  condition,  temptation, 
bad  usage,  the  fear  of  death,  and  death  itself,  "  even  the 
death  of  the  cross  "  ?  The  cardinal  unity  of  sympathy  ex- 
plains all  these  resultant  unities  of  lot.  And  as  for  the 
cardinal  unity  itself,  it  needs  no  explanation.  What  need 
to  explain  the  fact  of  the  holy  One  loving  the  unholy  with 
a  sympathetic  love,  which  makes  Him  and  them  as  one  ? 
Such  love  is  the  law  of  the  moral  universe — for  God,  for 
angels,  for  good  men.  The  unity  subsisting  between 
Sanctifier  and  sanctified,  therefore,  depends  not  on  any 
positive  divine  institution,  or  on  any  office  to  which  the 
former  is  appointed.  Christ's  unity  with  the  sinful  is  ante- 
cedent to,  independent  of,  constitutions  and  offices,  and  is 
due  simply  to  His  being  what  He  is — One  whose  inmost 
nature  is  holy  love.  For,  to  quote  the  words  of  the  most 
eloquent  modern  expounder  of  the  theory:  "  Such  is  love, 
that  it  must  insert  itself  into  the  conditions,  burden  itself 
with  the  wants  and  woes  and  losses,  and  even  wrongs,  of 
others.  It  waits  for  no  atoning  office,  or  any  other  kind  of 
office.     It  undertakes  because  it  is  love,  not  because  a  pro- 

1  Bushnell,  The  Vicarious  Sacrifice,  p.  II. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  307 

ject  is  raised  or  an  office  appointed.  It  goes  into  suffering 
and  labour  and  painful  sympathy,  because  its  own  ever- 
lasting instinct  runs  that  way.  There  can  be  no  greater 
mistake,  in  this  view,  than  to  imagine  that  Christ  has  the 
matter  of  vicarious  sacrifice  wholly  to  Himself,  because  He 
suffers  officially,  or  as  having  undertaken  it  for  His  office  to 
supply  so  much  suffering.  He  suffered  simply  what  was  in- 
cidental to  His  love,  and  the  works  to  which  love  prompted, 
just  as  any  missionary  suffers  what  belongs  to  the  work  of 
love  he  is  in."  1 

To  one  holding  such  views  it  would  not  be  an  effective 
reply  to  point  out,  that  the  sympathetic  love  ascribed  to 
Christ  does  not  of  itself  constitute  priestly  action  in  the 
strict  sense  of  the  word,  but  simply  amounts  to  a  personal 
qualification  for  the  office;  because  the  offices  of  Christ  are 
ostentatiously  held  in  light  esteem,  and  in  particular  the 
priestly  office  is  regarded  as  a  mere  figure  of  speech.  The 
advocates  of  the  theory  which  accounts  for  Christ's  whole 
state  of  humiliation  by  sympathy,  explain  the  prominence 
given  to  the  priestly  aspect  of  His  work  in  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  as  an  accommodation  to  Jewish  modes  of 
thinking  adopted  for  apologetic  purposes.  The  writer 
believed  that  he  could  commend  Christianity  to  his  readers, 
by  presenting  the  object  of  faith  to  their  view  under  a 
priestly  aspect;  and  therefore  he  ran  a  parallel  between 
Christ  and  the  Aaronic  high  priests,  straining  the  similitude 
to  an  extent  justified  by  the  paraenetic  aim,  but  which  it 
would  be  a  stupid  mistake  in  us  to  take  too  much  in 
earnest.  The  argument  is  rhetoric  rather  than  theology; 
and  Christ  is  called  a  priest  by  poetic  licence  rather  than  in 
plain  prose.  In  point  of  fact,  He  does  nothing  in  the  way 
of  making  atonement  for  men  before  God;  His  action  is  all 
manward,  and  its  sole  design  and  effect  is  to  gain  moral 
power  over  the  sinful  through  the  manifestation  of  divine 
love  in  self-sacrifice;  so,  as  it  is  put  by  the  author  already 
quoted,  "  at  the  expense  of  great  suffering,  and  even  of 
death  itself,  to  bring  us  out  of  our  sins  themselves,  and  so 
out  of  their  penalties."  s     To  one  whose  mind  has  slowly 

1  Bushnell,  The  Vicarious  Sacrifice,  pp.  67,  68  (English  Edition,  1871). 
»   The  Vicarious  Sacrifice,  chap.  i.  p.  7. 


308  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

passed  through  various  phases  of  opinion  on  the  present 
weighty  subject,  and  who  certainly  has  not  been  insensible 
to  the  fascinations  of  the  sympathy-theory  of  redemption 
advocated  by  Bushnell,  it  may  be  permitted  to  remark, 
that  such  a  summary  and  unceremonious  method  of  hand- 
ling the  important  category  of  our  Lord's  priesthood,  does 
not  commend  itself  to  a  sober  and  reverent  judgment. 
Unless  we  are  to  treat  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  as  a 
portion  of  Scripture  possessing  no  permanent  value  to  the 
Church,  as  a  source  of  instruction  in  Christian  truth, — as 
being,  indeed,  nothing  more  than  an  ingenious  piece  of 
reasoning,  serving  admirably  the  temporary  purpose  of  carry- 
ing Hebrew  Christians  safely  through  a  crisis  in  their  spir- 
itual history, — we  must  regard  Christ's  priesthood  as  a 
great  reality,  as  the  reality,  whereof  the  legal  priesthood 
was  but  a  rude  shadow,  not  even  an  exact  image.  If  so, 
then  this  Man  must  have  something  to  offer  to  God  for  us; 
and  His  offering  must  possess  all  the  properties  needful  to 
efficacy — must  be  the  absolutely  perfect,  and  therefore 
eternally  valid  sacrifice  for  sin,  perfecting  the  worshipper 
as  to  conscience — that  is,  delivering  him  completely  from 
the  painful  sense  of  guilt,  making  him  in  God's  sight  holy, 
and  establishing  between  him  and  God  a  relation  of  peace 
and  fellowship  upon  which  sin  exercises  no  disturbing  in- 
fluence. And  because  Christ  as  a  priest  offers  an  ideally 
perfect  sacrifice,  valid  for  and  having  effect  upon  God  in 
His  relation  to  men,  therefore  His  priesthood  must  be  a 
matter  of  divine  appointment.  Were  it  a  mere  affair  of 
gaining  moral  power  over  men  by  a  career  of  self-sacrificing 
love,  then  nothing  more  would  be  needed  to  constitute 
sanctifier  and  sanctified  one,  than  sympathetic  feeling,  and 
every  one  might  take  up  the  vocation  of  a  saviour  who  had 
a  mind.  But  if  the  sanctifier  is  to  act  not  only  on  men 
but  for  men,  and  to  prevail  with  God  to  certain  intents  and 
purposes,  then  sympathy  alone  will  not  suffice  to  form  a 
nexus  between  him  and  the  unholy.  There  must  be  a 
divine  appointment  to  the  priestly  office.  No  man  taketh 
this  honour  to  himself  but  he  that  is  called  of  God.  Sym- 
pathy may  be  a  very  important  qualification  for  office.  It 
is  so  indeed.     No  one  could  do  Christ's  work  who  was  merely 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  309 

an  "  official  "  performing  all  his  duties  in  a  perfunctory 
spirit;  and  this  is  a  truth  which,  by  way  of  antidote  to  the 
chilling  effect  of  a  scholastic  method  of  discussing  the 
Saviour's  offices,  may  very  properly  and  profitably  be  in- 
sisted on  by  such  as  have  been  led  to  feel  strongly  about 
it.  The  very  antipodes  of  officialism  did  the  Christ  behove 
to  be,  even  one  possessed  with  a  very  passion  for  saving 
the  sinful,  and  in  the  intensity  of  His  love  ready  to  descend 
to  the  lowest  depths,  to  put  His  shoulder  beneath  the 
heaviest  burdens,  and  to  feel  the  keenest  pangs  in  His 
vocation  as  Saviour,  yea,  feeling  such  pangs  just  because  He 
loved.  This  was  needful  as  a  qualification  for  office,  not 
only  with  a  view  to  gain  the  confidence  of  men,  but,  as  will 
appear,  equally  with  a  view  to  satisfy  Him  from  whom  the 
appointment  to  office  emanated.  Still  it  was  nothing  more 
than  a  qualification.  It  neither  superseded  the  necessity 
of  an  appointment,  nor  did  it  amount  to  a  full  discharge  of 
official  duty. 

Passing,  then,  from  the  qualifications  for  the  priestly  office 
to  the  office  itself,  I  remark  that  the  principle  of  identity, 
in  this  connection,  means,  not  that  the  sanctifier  and  the 
sanctified  are,  or  are  required  to  be,  one  in  all  circumstances 
conditioning  moral  power,  or  one  in  all  particulars  of  lot  as 
the  result  of  spontaneous  sympathy;  but  that  the  two  parties 
are  so  one  in  God's  sight  and  by  His  appointment,  that  what 
the  Sanctifier  does  in  His  official  capacity,  He  does  repre- 
sentatively in  the  name  of  those  He  represents,  and  for 
their  behoof,  so  that  in  Him,  and  in  virtue  of  His  transac- 
tions, they  are  in  the  divine  view  sanctified,  holy.  In  such 
a  relation  the  high  priest  of  Israel  stood  to  the  people.  On 
the  great  day  of  atonement  he  offered  sacrifice,  in  the 
name  and  as  the  representative  of  the  people;  and  the  result 
of  his  representative  action  was,  that  Israel  was  cleansed 
from  all  sin,  and  was  in  God's  sight  holy.  In  the  same  re- 
lation Christ  stands  to  the  spiritual  Israel.  He  is  the 
representative  of  the  people,  and  in  Him  God  regards  as 
sanctified  those  who  are  in  themselves  unholy.  But  this 
is  not  the  whole  truth.  The  High  Priest  of  our  confession 
is  not  only  a  Priest,  but  a  victim.  He  put  away  sin  by 
the  sacrifice  oi  Himself .     Hence,  while  as  a  Priest  He  is  our 


310  TJie  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

representative,  as  a  sacrifice  He  is  our  substitute.  For  as, 
in  the  law,  the  sins  of  the  people  were  laid  on  the  head  of 
the  victim,  and  expiated  by  the  shedding  of  its  blood;  so 
Christ  bore  our  sins  in  His  own  body,  and  died  on  the 
cross,  the  just  for  the  unjust,  that  He  might  bring  us 
to  God. 

It  was  chiefly  in  the  capacity  of  a  victim  that  Christ 
encountered  humiliation,  in  the  exercise  of  the  office  of  a 
Priest.  In  itself  the  priestly  office  involved  no  humiliation; 
on  the  contrary,  to  be  the  sacerdotal  representative  of  the- 
people  was  a  great  honour,  so  great  that  no  man  might 
take  it  unto  himself,  but  he  that  was  called  of  God,  as  was 
Aaron.  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  nature  of  the  office,  as 
having  to  do  with  sin,  and  all  its  duties,  as  in  one  way  or 
another  calling  sin  to  remembrance,  required  the  sacer- 
dotal representative  of  the  congregation  to  be  a  man  hum- 
ling  himself  habitually  before  the  Lord  for  the  sins  of  his 
brethren,  not  to  speak  of  his  own.  But  while  the  priest  who 
offered  sacrifices  for  sin,  and  the  victim  sacrificed,  remained 
distinct,  the  lowest  depth  of  humiliation  could  not  be 
reached.  It  was  reserved  for  Him  in  whom  the  ideals  of 
priesthood  and  of  sacrifice  were  both  united  and  perfectly 
realized,  to  prove  by  experience  the  humiliating  power  of 
sin  in  the  superlative  degree.  As  the  sacrifice  for  sin, 
Christ  endured  the  humiliation  of  becoming  a  sinner  in 
legal  standing,  made  sin  for  us  that  we  might  be  made  the 
righteousness  of  God;  made  like  unto  the  unholy  in  respects 
in  which  it  was  barely  possible  for  a  holy  Being  to  be  assim- 
ilated to  such,  even  in  subjection  to  the  curse,  to  the 
wrath  of  God,  to  death  as  the  penalty  of  sin,  that  we  might 
be  delivered  from  these  evils. 

This  statement,  however,  is  not  homologated  by  all  who 
agree  in  holding  the  principle,  that  the  Sanctifier  and  those 
who  are  sanctified  are  one,  in  the  sense  that  the  former 
represents  the  latter  before  God.  Many,  while  admitting 
Christ  to  be  the  representative  of  sinners,  deny  that  He  is 
their  substitute.  The  denial  implies,  for  one  thing,  that  no 
independent  substantive  value  is  attached  to  Christ's  death, 
it  being  regarded  simply  as  the  crowning  act  of  obedience 
and  devotion  to  the   divine  will.     It  further  implies  that 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  311 

the  priestly  action  of  Christ  always  includes  Himself  as  an 
object.  The  Sanctifier  sanctifies  Himself  as  well  as  the 
community;  sanctifies  the  community  by  sanctifying  Him- 
self. This  is  the  idea  underlying  that  view  of  Christ's 
redeeming  work,  which  has  been  more  than  once  referred 
to  in  these  lectures,  as  the  theory  of  redemption  by  sample, 
but'which  is  more  commonly  known  as  the  mystical  theory, 
the  title  adopted  by  Schleiermacher  to  distinguish  his  own 
view  of  the  doctrine  from  the  orthodox,  which  he  called 
the  "magical,"  on  the  one  hand,  and  from  the  Socinian, 
termed  the  "  empirical,"  on  the  other.1  Common  to  all 
forms  of  this  so-called  mystical  theory  is  the  position,  that 
what  Christ  did  for  men  He  did  also  for  Himself,  and  that 
He  did  it  for  us  by  doing  it  for  Himself,  acting  as  the  Headl 
and  representative  of  humanity  before  God.  The  High 
Priest  of  humanity  sanctified  Himself  for  the  sake  of  hu- 
manity, and  in  so  doing  presented  the  whole  lump  hofy  to 
the  Lord.  The  point  on  which  the  advocates  of  this  theory- 
are  not  agreed  is  the  question,  Wherein  did  Christ's  self- 
sanctification  consist  ?  The  ancient  Fathers,  many  of  whomi 
held  this  theory,  in  addition  to  their  grotesque  fancy,  that 
the  death  of  Christ  was  a  price  paid  to  the  devil,  for  the  ran- 
som of  men's  souls  from  his  dominion,  sometimes  identified 
the  sanctification  of  humanity  in  Christ's  person  with  the  In- 
carnation. Thus  Hilary:  "  For  the  sake  of  the  human  race 
the  Son  of  God  was  born  of  the  Virgin,  and  by  the  Holy 
Ghost,  that  being  made  man  He  might  receive  the  nature 
of  the  flesh  unto  Himself,  and  that,  by  the  admixture,  the 
body  of  the  whole  human  race  might  be  sanctified  in  Him; 
so  that  as  all  were  included  in  Him  through  His  will  to  be 
corporeal,  He  might  in  turn  enter  into  all  through  His  in- 
visible part."2  Stress  was  sometimes,  however,  laid  on  the 
holy  life  of  Christ  in  human  nature;  as  in  a  passage  quoted 
from  Cyril  in  a  previous  lecture,  where  Christ  is  spoken  of 
as  destroying  sin  in  humanity,  by  living  a  human  life  free 

1  Dtr  christliche  Glaube,  ii.  99-101. 

5  De  Trinitate,  1.  ii.  c.  24:  Humani  generis  causa  Dei  filius  natus  ex  virgine 
est  et  Spirito  sancto  .  .  .  ut  homo  factus  ex  virgine  naturam  in  se  carnis  acciperet, 
perque  hujus  admixtionis  societatem  sanctificatum  in  eo  universi  generis  humani 
corpus  exsisteret :  ut  quemadmodum  omnes  in  se  per  id  quod  corporeum  se  esse 
voluit  conderentur,  ita  rursum  in  omnes  ipse  per  id  quod  ejus  est  invisibile  referrerur 


312  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

from  all  sin,  rendering  the  soul  He  assumed  superior  to 
sin,  by  dyeing  it  with  the  moral  strength  and  unchange- 
ableness  of  His  own  divine  nature.1  In  the  theory  of  Men- 
ken and  Irving,  in  principle  the  same  with  that  taught  by 
the  Fathers,  the  Sanctifier  makes  the  lump  of  humanity 
holy,  by  taking  a  portion  of  the  corrupt  mass  tainted  with 
the  vice  of  original  sin  and  subject  to  sinful  bias,  and  by  a 
desperate  life-long  struggle  sanctifying  it,  subduing  all 
temptations  to  sin  arising  out  of  its  evil  proclivities,  and  at 
last  consuming  the  body  of  death  as  a  sin-offering  on  the 
cross.  In  the  patristic  form  of  the  theory  the  sample  was 
of  better  quality  than  the  lump;  in  the  Menken-Irving 
theory  the  sample  was,  morally  as  well  as  metaphysically, 
just  a  fair  sample  of  the  lump,  and  was  only  made  better 
by  a  painful  process  of  self-mortification.  In  the  hands  of 
Maurice,  the  mystical  theory  assumes  a  kindred  but  some- 
what modified  form.  Christ,  as  the  root  and  archetype  of 
humanity,  in  His  own  person  offers  up  man  as  an  acceptable 
sacrifice  to  God,  in  the  sense  of  exhibiting  in  His  life  and 
death  the  entire  surrender  of  the  whole  spirit  and  body  to 
God,  and  the  complete  renunciation  of  that  self-will  which 
is  the  cause  of  all  men's  crimes  and  of  all  their  misery. 
Such  self-sacrifice  was  what  was  really  meant  by  all  the 
legal  sacrifices:  for  the  victims  died,  not  as  substitutes  for 
the  offerer,  but  as  symbols  of  his  devotion.  What  these  legal 
sacrifices  but  dimly  foreshadowed,  Christ  perfectly  realized. 
In  His  life  and  death  He  offered  up  the  one  complete  sac- 
rifice ever  offered,  the  perfect  example  of  self-surrender  and 
devotion  to  the  divine  will;  and  God  accepted  the  sacri- 
fice, as  made  not  by  an  individual,  but  by  the  race  as  rep- 
resented by  its  archetypal  man.2 

It  is  impossible  within  the  compass  of  a  single  lecture, 
and  indeed  it  is  quite  unnecessary,  to  follow  out  into  fur- 
ther detail  the  exposition  of  this  type  of  doctrine.  It  must 
suffice  to  say,  that  since  the  time  of  Schleiermacher,  what 
he  called  the  "  mystical "  theory  in  contradistinction  to  the 
"  magical,"  but  what,  imitating  his  epigrammatic  style,  I 
prefer  to  call  the  theory  of  redemption  by  sample,  as  op- 

1    Vid.  Lecture  ii.  p.  47. 

*  Vid.  The  Doctrine  of  Sacrifice,  and   Theological  Essays. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  313 

posed  to  redemption  by  substitute,  has  been  much  in  favour 
among  German  theologians.1  And  by  way  of  criticism  of 
this  in  some  respects  most  attractive  theory,  I  offer  only  two 
observations.  The  first  is,  that  advocates  of  the  doctrine 
of  substitution,  and  of  the  correlate  doctrine  of  imputa- 
tion, are  nowise  concerned  to  meet  with  unqualified  denial 
the  underlying  postulate  of  the  theory — viz.,  that  whatever 
Christ  did  for  us  He  did  for  Himself,  or  that  His  priestly 
action  was  inclusive,  not  exclusive,  of  Himself.  To  a  cer- 
tain extent  this  is  quite  true.  The  Sanctifier  was  holy  for 
Himself  as  well  as  for  us;  and  in  so  far  as  His  death  was 
necessary  to  the  maintenance  in  unbroken  continuity  and 
closest  intimacy,  at  all  hazards,  of  His  fellowship  with  His 
Father,  we  may  even  concede  to  Ritschl  that  He  died  for 
Himself  as  well  as  for  us.2  For  the  same  reason  I  admit 
that  Jesus  prayed  for  Himself  as  well  as  for  us;  a  fact  which 
the  author  just  named  thinks  has  been  entirely  overlooked 
by  the  upholders  of  the  orthodox  theory.3  Ritschl  de- 
scribes the  priestly  activity  of  Christ  for  us  as  consisting  in 
bringing  us  nigh  to  God;  that  idea,  in  his  opinion,  covering 
the  whole  design  and  effect  of  the  ancient  sacrifices.4 
Christ's  priestly  action  for  Himself,  on  the  other  hand,  con- 
sisted in  maintaining  His  originally  existing  nighness  to 
God,  in  presence  of  circumstances  tending  to  produce  sep- 
aration and  alienation;  His  death  was  His  last  crowning 
effort  for  that  purpose.  On  this  view  it  was  as  necessary 
that  Christ  should  die  in  His  own  interest,  in  His  capacity 
as  a  Priest,  as  it  was  that  He  should  die  in  His  capacity  as 
a  Prophet.  In  the  latter  case,  He  died  that  He  might  be 
faithful  to  Him  that  appointed  Him,  in  His  vocation  as  an 
Apostle.  In  the  former,  He  died  that  He  might  be  faith- 
ful to  us  as  our  High  Priest.  Dying  as  a  Prophet,  He  main- 
tained to  the  end  His  solidarity  with  God;  dying  as  a  Priest, 
He  maintained  to  the  end  His  solidarity  with  men.5  All 
this  I  am  ready  to  accept;  but  in  doing  so,  I  observe  that 

1  On  the  recent  German  literature  bearing  on  the  subject,  vid.  Philippi,  Kirck- 
liche  Glaubenslehre,  vol.  iv.  zweite  Halfte,  pp.  156-204.  Also  Ritschl,  Die  christ- 
liche  Lehre  von  der  Rechtfertigung  und  Versbhnung  dargestellt,  vol.  i.  pp.  465-520. 

2  Die  ckrist liche  Lehre  von  der  Rechtfertigung  und  VersShnung,  vol.  iii.  p.  414, 

3  Ibid  iii.  p.  412.  *  Ibid.  ii.  p.  210.  »  Ibid.  iii.  p.  490. 


314  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

Christ  did  not  die  for  Himself,  or,  to  put  it  more  generally, 
maintain  His  fellowship  with  God,  even  unto  death,  for 
Himself,  in  the  same  sense  as  for  us.  As  a  Priest,  acting 
in  His  own  interest,  He  simply  ensured  that  He  should 
continue  what  He  was — holy.  As  a  Priest,  acting  for  us, 
He  ensured,  by  His  holiness  in  life  and  death,  that  we,  the 
unholy,  should  be  holy  in  God's  sight — "  accepted  in  the 
Beloved."  What  is  this  but  to  sanctify,  or,  to  use  the  more 
correct  expression  in  this  connection,  to  justify  the  unholy 
by  imputation  ?  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  Ritschl  rejects  the 
doctrine  of  justification  by  imputation  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness, and  in  its  place  substitutes  justification  by  imputation 
of fellowship  with  Christ,  proposing  as  the  appropriate  for- 
mula the  following:  "  God  imputes  to  the  members  of 
the  community  of  Christ,  their  fellowship  with  Christ,  as 
the  condition  under  which  He  admits  them  to  fellowship 
with  Himself." '  This  formula  certainly  seems  to  convey 
the  idea  that,  after  all,  it  is  not  the  perfect  righteousness 
of  the  Sanctifier  which  forms  the  ground  why  God  accepts 
as  righteous  the  unholy,  but  rather  the  incipient  righteous- 
ness of  those  who  are  justified,  manifested  in  their  volun- 
tary fellowship  with  Christ.  But  in  that  case  what  be- 
comes of  the  author's  doctrine,  that  justification  is  a  "  syn- 
thetic judgment,"  that  is,  a  gracious  act  of  the  divine  will 
affirming  of  the  subject  that  which  is  not  contained  in  the 
idea  of  it;  as  thus,  "The  sinner  is  to  God  righteous;  he  is 
adopted  by  God;  he  is  brought  nigh  to  God  "  ? 2  This  doc- 
trine, taken  along  with  the  above  formula,  would  seem  to 
imply  that  God  justifies  the  sinner,  pardoning  his  sin  and 
accepting  him  as  righteous  in  His  sight,  not  for  any  incipi- 
ent goodness  in  himself,  but  for  the  righteousness  of  Christ, 
imputed  to  him  and  received  by  faith.  But  it  must  be 
confessed  that  this  inference,  however  legitimate,  does  not 
seem  to  be  accepted  by  Ritschl.  In  explaining,  with  a 
view  to  illustrate  his  doctrine  of  justification,  those  passages 

1  Die  chrislliche  Lehre  von  der  Rechtfertigimg  und  VersOhnung,  iii.  p.  482: 
Gott  den  Gliedern  der  Gemeinde  Christi  ihre  Gemeinschaft  mit  Christus  als  die 
Bedingung  anrechnet,  unter  der  er  sie  zur  Gemeinschaft  mit  sich  selbst  zulasst. 

2  Ibid.  iii.  466:  Der  Sunder  ist  Gott  recht,  er  ist  Gott  angeeignet,  er  ist  in  di« 
fcahe  Gottes  versetzt. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  3 1 5 

of  Scripture  in  which  God  is  represented  as  forgiving  sin, 
out  of  regard  to  the  intercession  or  the  righteousness  of 
good  men  like  Moses  or  David,  he  gives  the  matter  this 
turn:  "In  the  recognition  of  an  intercession  as  a  ground 
of  forgiveness,  no  judgment  contrary  to  truth  is  pronounced; 
but  a  resolution  of  confidence  is  formed  out  of  regard  to  the 
probability  that  one  who  is  deemed  worthy  of  the  fellow- 
ship of  an  honourable  man,  is  worthy  also  to  be  received 
again  into  the  fellowship  of  the  party  injured.  In  like 
manner  is  the  righteousness  of  David  represented  as  a 
motive  of  divine  forgiveness;  because  the  Israelites,  in  spite 
of  their  disobedience,  have  the  honour  to  possess  in  David 
a  representative  whose  fellowship  with  them  awakens  the 
conjecture  that  they  are  not  incapacitated  for  obeying  God." ' 
Far-fetched,  forced  explanations,  indeed,  indicating  a  very 
decided  reluctance  to  recognise  the  goodness  of  one  man, 
as  the  real  ground  of  gracious  judgments  and  actions,  on 
God's  part,  towards  others. 

These  remarks  lead  us  naturally  to  the  second  observation 
which  I  have  to  offer,  by  way  of  criticism,  on  the  mystical 
theory  of  redemption.  It  is  chargeable  with  the  vice  of 
ambiguity,  inasmuch  as  it  does  not  clearly  indicate  in  what 
way  Christ's  action  avails  for  us.  Does  the  sample  really 
sanctify  the  whole  lump  in  God's  sight  ?  or  does  it  merely 
exhibit  a  result  which  has  to  be  reached  in  every  individual 
member  of  the  race,  which  it  somehow  helps  us  to  reach, 
and  which,  when  realized,  or  foreseen  as  realized,  is  the 
ground  of  God's  judgment  in  accepting  us  as  holy  ?  The 
theory  stated  in  general  terms  leaves  these  points  inde- 
terminate; it  is  compatible  with  either  alternative;  and 
according  as  it  inclines  to  the  one  side  or  the  other,  it  goes 

1  Die  christliche  Lehre  von  der  Rechtfertigung  utid  VersShmtng,  iii.  P.  58:  In 
der  Anerkennung  einer  Ftirbitte  zum  Zwecke  der  Verzeihung  wird  also  kein  wahr- 
heitswidriges  Urtheil  getallt,  sondernein  Entschluss  des  Vertrauens  ausgetibt  durch 
Vermittelung  eines  Urtheils  der  Wahrscheinlichkeit,  dass  derjenige,  welcher  von 
einem  ehrenhaften  Manne  der  Gemeinschaft  gewtlrdigt  wird,  werth  ist,  auch  von 
dem  Beleidigten  zur  Gemeinschaft  wieder  angenommen  zu  werden.  Demgemass 
wird  auch  die  Gerechtigkeit  Davids  als  Motiv  der  gOttlichen  Verzeihung  vorge- 
stellt,  weil  die  Israeliten  trotz  ihres  Ungehorsams  die  Ehre  haben,  an  David  einen 
Reprasentanten  zu  besitzen,  dessen  Gemeinschaft  mit  ihnen  die  Vermuthung  ep 
weckt,  dass  sie  zum  Gehorsam  gegen  Gott  befahigt  sind. 


3 1 6  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

over  either  to  the  side  of  orthodoxy  or  to  the  side  of  So* 
cinianism.  The  mystical  scheme  is  distinct  from  othei 
forms  of  doctrine,  only  so  long  as  it  deals  in  general  impos- 
ing phrases,  and  refuses  to  be  explicit.  Whenever  it  con- 
descends to  explain  itself,  it  is  seen  to  be  identical  either 
with  what  Schleiermacher  was  pleased  to  call  the  magical 
view,  or  what  the  same  author  stigmatized  as  the  empirical 
view.  In  point  of  fact,  the  tendency  of  the  mystical  school 
has  been  for  the  most  part  towards  the  latter;  that  is  to 
say,  their  doctrine  of  atonement  turns  out  to  be  simply  a 
form  of  the  moral  influence  theory.  This  is  particularly 
true  in  reference  to  Schleiermacher.  When  we  find  him 
saying  that,  "as  of  the  whole  Jewish  people  the  high  priest 
alone  appeared  before  God,  and  God,  as  it  were,  saw  the 
whole  people  in  him;  so  Christ  is  on  this  account  our  High 
Priest,  because  God  sees  us  not  every  one  for  himself,  but 
only  in  Him,"1 — we  are  ready  to  come  to  the  conclusion, 
that  here  we  have  God  accepting  the  unholy,  on  account 
of  the  righteousness  of  Christ  imputed  to  them.  But,  read- 
ing on,  we  find  that  the  doctrine,  that  Christ's  obedience 
is  our  righteousness,  or  that  His  righteousness  is  imputed  to 
us,  means,  for  Schleiermacher,  that  "  Christ  as  our  High 
Priest  represents  us  perfectly  before  God  in  virtue  of  His 
own  complete  fulfilment  of  the  divine  will,  to  which,  through 
His  life  in  us,  the  impulse  is  active  in  us  also;  so  that,  in 
this  connection  with  Him,  we  too  are  objects  of  the  divine 
complacency."  2  That  is,  Christ  in  us,  not  Christ  for  us,  is 
the  ground  of  justification.  Christ,  the  founder  of  the 
divine  kingdom,  has  introduced  a  new  principle  of  life  into 
the  community  called  by  His  name.  This  principle,  or,  in 
other  words,  the  life  image  of  Christ,  works  like  a  leaven 
in  the  mass,  gradually  assimilating  the  members  to  the 
great  Exemplar  and  Head.  Because  of  this  process  of 
assimilation  going  on  in  those  who  are  connected  with 
Christ  by  a  fellowship  of  life,  God  is  well  pleased  with 
them,  notwithstanding  existing  imperfection.  Redemption 
is  thus  purely  subjective;  fellowship  of  life  with  Christ  in 
His  holiness  and  in  His  blessedness  is  the  whole  outcome 

1  Dc-r  christliche  Glaube,  ii.  p.  133. 
•-'  Ibid.  ii.  p.  133. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  3 1 7 

of  His  work; '  and  as  in  Schleiermacher's  system  this  fellow- 
ship is  not  immediate,  but  only  through  the  medium  of  the 
Church,  direct  personal  fellowship  with  the  Saviour  being 
branded  as  magical,  the  redemptive  influence  emanating 
from  the  founder  of  the  Christian  religion  reduces  itself 
to  the  influence  of  a  society,  in  which  more  or  less  clear 
ideas  prevail,  of  that  founder's  teaching,  spirit,  and  history. 
That  is  to  say,  as  Baur  has  pointed  out,2  Schleiermacher's 
mystic  conception  of  redemption  and  reconciliation  passes 
over  into  that  which  he  named  the  empirical,  which  wholly 
excludes  the  supernatural,  and  makes  men's  salvation  sim- 
ply the  natural  result  of  doctrine  and  example  acting  on 
their  minds,  by  way  of  moral  influence.  The  same  thing, 
however,  it  is  cordially  admitted,  cannot  be  said  of  all  who, 
more  or  less,  share  the  Schleiermacherian  point  of  view. 
Theologians  like  Nitzsch  *  not  only  recognise  a  direct 
personal  fellowship  with  Christ,  but  teach  a  Christ  for  us 
as  well  as  a  Christ  in  us,  and  acknowledge  that  the  work 
of  redemption  has  an  objective,  Godward  side,  as  well  as  a 
subjective.  And  when  this  is  done,  there  need  be  no 
jealousy  of  the  mystic  theory.  For  redemption  by  sample 
can  be  combined  with  redemption  by  substitute.  The  doc- 
trine of  a  Christ  in  us  and  that  of  a  Christ  for  us  are  not 
only  compatible,  but  complementary  of  each  other;  either 
is  but  a  half  truth  without  the  other.  The  two  points  of 
view,  the  mystic  and  the  legal,  are  both  recognised  in 
Scripture;  they  are  found  meeting  together  amicably  within 
a  few  verses  of  each  other  in  a  well-known  chapter  of  one 
of  Paul's  Epistles.  When,  speaking  in  the  name  of  Chris- 
tians, the  apostle  says,  "  We  thus  judge:  if  one  died  for  all, 
then  all  died,"  he  presents  to  view  the  mystic  aspect  of  the 
truth,  the  death  of  Christ  being  here  regarded  as  a  sample 
of  what  has  to  be  realized  in  each  individual  believer,  and 
is  realized  in  him,  in  proportion  as  he  lives  not  to  himself, 


1  Schleiermacher  divides  the  work  of  Christ  into  two  parts,  distinguished  respec- 
tively as  the  redeeming  and  the  atoning  activity.  The  redeeming  activity  consists 
in  taking  sinners  into  fellowship  in  His  holiness;  the  atoning,  in  taking  them  irta 
fellowship  in  His  blessedness.     Vid.  christlicke  Glaube,  ii.  pp.  94,  102. 

?  Die  christlicke  Lehre  von  der  Versdhnimg,  p.  619. 

>  System  der  christlichen  Lehre,  pp.  279-283,  6te  Auflage. 


3 1 S  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

but  to  Him  that  died  and  rose  again.  He  presents  the 
same  subject  on  the  legal  side,  when,  at  the  close  of  the 
same  chapter,  addressing  men  whom  he  urges  to  be  recon- 
ciled to  God,  he  writes,  "  For  He  hath  made  Him  to  be  sin 
for  us,  who  knew  no  sin,  that  we  might  be  made  the  right- 
eousness of  God  in  Him;"  the  death  of  Christ  being  viewed 
here  as  an  event  which  takes  place  in  order  that  we  might 
not  die,  but  be  justified  in  God's  sight,1 — in  other  words,  as 
the  penalty  of  our  sin  inflicted  on  Christ  as  our  substitute 
or  vicar.' 

But  can  such  a  transference  of  legal  responsibility  as 
seems  to  be  taught  in  this  text  really  have  taken  place  ? 
Is  such  a  transference  possible  ?  Is  it  worthy  of  the  great 
Sovereign  of  the  universe,  the  First  Cause  and  Last  End 
of  all  ?  Is  it  in  accordance  with  the  facts  of  Christ's  his- 
tory ?  These  are  the  questions  to  which  we  must  now  turn. 
Now,  as  to  the  first,  it  scarcely  needs  to  be  remarked,  that 
what  is  affirmed  by  the  Catholic  doctrine  is  not  transference 
of  guilt  or  moral  turpitude,  but  simply  of  legal  liability. 
Christ  was  made  sin  for  us,  simply  to  the  extent  and  effect 
of  bearing  penalty  for  our  sin.  Some  prominent  defenders 
of  the  Catholic  doctrine  have  indeed  hesitated  to  go  even 
so  far  as  this.  Archbishop  Magee,  e.  g.,  in  his  well-known 
work  on  the  atonement,  maintains  that  the  idea  of  punish- 
ment in  the  strict  sense  cannot  be  abstracted  from  that  of 
guilt;  and,  while  admitting  that  Christ's  sufferings  were 
judicially  inflicted,  he  holds  that  they  can  be  called  the 
punishment  of  our  sins,  only  in  the  sense  that  they  were 
the  sufferings  due  to  us  the  offenders,  and  which,  if  inflicted 
on  the  actual  offenders,  would  then  take  properly  the 
name  of  punishment.3  A  more  recent  writer,  the  Donellan 
lecturer  for  the  year  1857,  in  a  work  on  the  atonement, 
which  has  for  its  praiseworthy  aim  to  exhibit  the  Catholic 
doctrine  cleared  of  such  careless  expressions  and  imperfect 
definitions  as  tend  to  awaken  hostility  or  furnish  a  handle 
for  scepticism,  endorses  the  distinguished  prelate's  view, 
and  says,  "that  we  must,  when  we  speak  of  the  penal  suf- 

1  2  Cor.  v.  15.  21.  *  See  Appendix,  Note  A. 

3  Discourses  and  Dissertations  on  the  Scriptural  Doctrines  of  Atonement  and 
Sacrifice,  Dissert.  No.  42,  p.  457  (4th  ed.). 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  319 

ferings  of  Christ,  admit  that  we  use  the  word  '  penal '  in  a 
peculiar  sense,  as  expressing  the  relation  of  those  sufferings 
not  to  Him  who  bore  them,  but  to  our  demerits,  in  which 
they  originated."  '  Such  scruples  are  entitled  to  respect, 
yet  there  is  truth  in  the  remark  of  another  theologian,  that, 
in  conceding  the  judicial  character  of  Christ's  sufferings, 
these  writers  admit  all  that  is  intended  to  be  taught  when 
the  epithet  "  penal "  is  applied  to  them.2  The  vital  ques- 
tion is,  Can  these  sufferings  be  rightly  regarded  as  judicial 
in  their  nature  ?  Now,  looking  at  this  question  from  our 
peculiar  point  of  view,  that  of  Christ's  voluntary  humilia- 
tion, I  remark,  that  if  descent  into  the  legal  standing  of  a 
sinner  were  at  all  possible,  Christ  would  gladly  make  the 
descent.  It  was  His  mind,  His  bent,  His  mood,  if  I  may 
so  speak,  to  go  down  till  He  had  reached  the  utmost  limits 
of  possibility.  So  minded,  He  would  be  predisposed  to 
find  the  imputation  of  men's  sin  to  Himself,  to  the  intent 
of  His  bearing  their  penalty  within  these  limits.  By  an 
antecedent  act  of  subjective  self-imputation,  He  would,  so 
to  say,  prejudge  the  question  in  favour  of  the  possibility  of 
an  objective  imputation.  What  the  moral  government  of 
God  is  supposed  to  forbid,  the  sympathy  of  the  Son  of  man 
would  be  prone  to  ordain  as  a  law  for  itself.  The  truth  of 
this  observation  is  tacitly  acknowledged  by  the  peculiar 
theory  of  atonement  taught  by  the  late  Dr.  M'Leod  Camp- 
bell; the  sole  value  of  that  theory,  indeed,  lies  in  the  fact 
that  it  involves  such  an  acknowledgment.  That  writer, 
repudiating  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  imputation  as  a  theo- 
logical figment,  and  improving  a  hint  thrown  out  by  Presi- 
dent Edwards  respecting  an  alternative  method  of  satisfying 
for  sin,  namely,  by  an  adequate  confession  of  sin, — a  hint 
which  he  might  have  got  from  a  schoolman  of  the  twelfth 

1  MacDonnel,  The  Doctrine  of  the  Atonement  deduced  from  Scripture,  Lect. 
vi.  p.  198.  It  is  well  known  that  Anselm,  who  first  formulated  the  theory  of  satis- 
faction,  did  not  regard  Christ's  death  as  penal.  Satisfaction  in  his  system  did  not 
consist  in  paying  the  penalty,  but  was  rather  one  of  two  alternatives,  the  other 
teing  the  paying  of  the  penalty.  Thus  he  says,  in  Cur  Dens  Homo,  i.  c.  15: 
"  Nxesse  est,  ut  omne  peccatum  satisfactio  aut  poena  sequatur.1'  See  Baur,  Ver- 
tOhnungslehre,  p.  183.  If  the  disuse  of  a  word  would  reconcile  thoughtful  mei 
to  the  truth  intended  to  be  conveyed,  one  might  easily  forego  it. 

1  Professor  Crawford,  On  the  Atonement,  p.  184. 


320  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

century,1 — propounds  the  doctrine  that  Christ,  bearing  us 
and  our  sins  on  His  heart  before  the  Father,  made  a  perfect 
confession  of  human  sin:  a  confession  which  "was  a  perfect 
Amen  in  humanity  to  the  judgment  of  God  on  the  sin  of 
man;  "  "  a  confession  due  in  the  truth  of  things,  due  on  our 
behalf  though  we  could  not  render  it,  due  from  Him  as  in 
our  nature  and  our  true  Brother,  what  He  must  needs  feel 
in  Himself  because  of  the  holiness  and  love  which  were  in 
Him,  what  He  must  needs  utter  to  the  Father  in  expiation 
of  our  sins  when  He  would  make  intercession  for  us;  "  a 
confession  which  had  in  it  "  all  the  elements  of  a  perfect 
contrition    and    repentance,    excepting    the    personal  con- 
sciousness of  sin."  2     The  theory  has  been  treated  by  critics 
of  all  schools  as  the  eccentricity  of  a  devout  author,  who, 
dissatisfied  with  the  traditional  theory,  has  substituted  in 
its  place  another,  involving  not  only  greater  difficulty,  but 
even  something  very  like  absurdity.     The  idea  of  a  con- 
fession made  by  a  perfectly  holy  being,  involving  all  the 
elements  of  a  perfect  repentance,  except  the  personal  con- 
sciousness of  sin,  is  certainly  absurd  enough.     It  is  either 
the  play  of  Hamlet  without  the  part  of  Hamlet;  or,  if  the 
repentance  have  any  real  contents,  then  the  remark  of  a 
Transatlantic  critic  is  most  pertinent:  "After  having  im- 
plied that  Christ  repented  of  the  sins  of  the  race,  we  do 
not  see  why  Mr.  Campbell  should  object  to  the  theory  that 
He  was  punished  for  these  sins."  3     Repentance  is  certainly 
the  more  difficult,  and  more  obviously  "  impossible  "  task 
of  the  two,  for  a  holy  being  to  perform.     But,  as  already 
hinted,  this  eccentric  theory  has  at  least  this  much  value, 
that  it  bears  testimony  to  the  truth  that,  from  whatever 
quarter  objections  to  the  imputation  of  our  sin  to  Christ 
were  to  come,  they  were  not  likely  to  emanate  from  Christ 
Himself.     The  Saviour,  according  to  this  theory,  through 
His  holy,  loving  sympathy,  imputes  the  sins  of  humanity 
to   Himself,   as   sins  for  which  a  confession  was  due  from 
Him  as  in  our  nature,  our  true  Brother.     The  statement 
even   implies   an   objective  imputation,   to  the  extent  of 

1  Rupert  of  Duytz. 

2  J.  M'Leori  Campbell,  On  the  Nature  of  the  Atonement,  p.  138. 

3  Professor  Park,  quoted  in  Bushnell's  Forgiveness  and  Law,  p.  31. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  321 

demanding  such  a  confession.  For  if  the  confession  was 
due  to  God  in  the  very  truth  of  things,  surely  God  could 
claim  His  due;  and  to  claim  His  due  from  Christ  means  to 
make  Him  responsible  for  the  debt.  In  principle,  the  theory 
differs  little  from  the  orthodox;  its  peculiarity  lies  simply 
in  this,  that  it  makes  the  debt  payable  not  by  suffering 
merely,  but  by  confession.  But  not  to  insist  on  this,  and 
regarding  the  theory  in  question  as  denying  objective  im- 
putation of  sin  to  Christ,  we  may  still  say  of  it  that  it 
asserts,  with  even  extravagant  emphasis,  the  subjective 
self-imputation  of  sin  to  Himself  by  Christ,  as  a  thing 
inevitable  to  one  minded  as  He  was.  And  here  at  least  it 
speaks  the  truth,  though  it  may  be  in  an  exaggerated  form; 
•  for,  without  a  doubt,  it  was  the  instinctive  impulse  of  the 
Redeemer  to  impute  to  Himself  the  world's  sin,  and  in  the 
light  of  such  imputation,  to  regard  the  evils  of  His  earthly 
lot  as  a  personal  participation  in  the  curse  pronounced  on 
man  for  sin.  It  was  a  satisfaction  to  His  heart  to  feel  that, 
in  being  born  into  a  family  whose  royal  lineage  and  mean 
condition,  combined,  bore  expressive  witness  to  the  misery 
that  had  overtaken  Israel  for  her  sins,  in  being  subjected 
to  the  necessity  of  earning  His  bread  by  the  sweat  of  His 
brow,  in  being  exposed  to  the  assaults  of  Satan,  in  having 
to  endure  the  contradiction  of  sinners,  in  being  nailed  to 
the  cross,  He  was  indeed  made  partaker  of  our  curse — in 
this  respect,  too,  our  Brother,  and  like  unto  His  brethren. 
From  the  same  subjective  point  of  view  we  may,  with 
Rupert  of  Duytz,  regard  Jesus,  as  He  went  from  Nazareth 
to  the  Jordan  to  be  baptized  by  John,  as  going  forth  to  do 
penance  for  the  sin  of  the  world,  clothed  in  the  very  habit 
of  a  penitent,  Himself  the  Holy  of  Holies,  yet  alone  fit  to 
render  penitence  for  the  sins  of  the  elect,  and,  as  the  sin- 
bearer,  receiving  the  baptism  of  repentance  among  the 
penitent  multitude.1  Every  one  who,  like  the  Abbot  of 
Duytz,  takes  a  strong  hold  of  the  great  truth  of  Christ's 
self-humiliating  love,  must  sympathize  with  such  a  view. 

We  can  cite,  in  favour  of  this  self-imputation  of  sin  on 
the  part  of  the  Saviour,  yet  another  witness,  not  a  medi- 
aeval, but  a  modern  one — viz.  Bushnell,  author  of  the  work 

1  See  Appendix,  Note  B. 


322  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

already  quoted  in  this  lecture,  on  The  Vicarious  Sacrifice, 
This  ingenious  author,  having  ceased  to  be  entirely  satis- 
fied with  the  views  set  forth  in  the  latter  portions  of  that 
work,  published  a  new  treatise,  entitled  Forgiveness  and 
Law,  recalling  these  sections  of  the  older  publication,  and 
substituting  in  their  place  certain  new  views,  which  had 
come  into  his  mind,  he  tells  us,  almost  like  a  revelation.1 
The  new  views  are  promulgated  with  as  much  confidence 
as  the  old  ones,  as  the  unquestionable  solution  of  the  great 
problem.  The  overweening  confidence  of  the  writer  is  in- 
deed the  gravest  fault  of  the  book.  That  a  man  should  be 
slow  of  heart  to  understand  the  full  meaning  of  Christ's 
death  is  no  reproach;  at  least  it  is  one  which  it  would  not 
become  every  Christian  disciple  to  bring  against  a  brother. 
That  one  who  has  made  the  great  theme  of  redemption 
his  study  of  many  years  should  have  something  to  learn 
and  to  unlearn  still,  is  not  to  be  wondered  at;  for  therein 
is  revealed  the  many-sided  wisdom  of  God, s  and  who  has  yet 
seen  all  the  sides  ?  nay,  who  has  not,  by  the  very  intensity 
of  his  gaze  at  this  or  the  other  side,  rendered  himself  as  good 
as  blind  to  the  other  sides,  perhaps  equally  important  ?  But 
one  who  claims  to  have  got  new  light,  and  by  the  very 
claim  confesses  previous  partial  error,  ought  to  avoid  the 
oracular  style,  and  to  speak  with  the  modesty  of  one 
who  feels  he  may  have  to  confess  to  yet  further  changes 
of  view.  Certainly,  if  the  Catholic  doctrine  be  true,  Bush- 
nell  had  still  a  good  deal  to  learn;  for  he  denounces  that 
doctrine,  as  he  understands  it,  with  all  the  old  vehemence. 
Still  in  the  new  work  he  makes  an  approach  to  the  de- 
nounced theory  in  two  important  directions.  He  here  ad- 
mits an  objective  real  propitiation  of  God,  as  opposed  to 
a  purely  subjective  one,  as  previously  asserted,  in  which 
the  disciple  merely  objectivizes  his  own  feelings,  conceiving 
that  God  Himself  is  representatively  mitigated  or  become 

1  Since  these  lectures  were  delivered,  Horace  Bushnell  has  passed  to  his  rest 
and  I  cannot  refrain  from  expressing  my  admiration  of  the  man,  and  the  great 
enjoyment,  intense  stimulus,  and  frequent  help  I  have  gained  from  the  perusal  of 
his  writings,  in  which,  whatever  debateable  opinions  they  may  contain,  sanctified 
genius  shines  out  on  every  page.  Readers  of  his  biography  will  learn  thence  how 
well  he  deserves  to  be  called  ar.  earnest  seeker  after  truth. 

•  Eph.  iii.  10. 


Hie  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  323 

propitious,  because  he  is  himself  inwardly  reconciled  to  God.1 
Instead  of  this,  the  author  here  asserts  a  real  propitiation 
of  God,  "  finding  it  in  evidence  from  the  propitiation  we 
instinctively  make  ourselves  when  we  heartily  forgive,"' 
— having  observed,  that  is,  that  men  who  want  to  forgive 
thoroughly  have  first  to  overcome  their  own  moral  disgust, 
by  doing  acts  for  the  offender  which  cost  them  effort  and 
sacrifice.'  The  other  approximation  consists  in  asserting 
that  Christ  was  "  incarnated  into  the  curse,"  as  a  necessary 
condition  of  His  being  able  to  raise  men  out  of  the  curse 
into  the  sphere  of  Christian  liberty.  The  author  represents 
Christ  as  "  consciously  "  suffering  "  the  curse  or  penal  shame 
and  disaster  of  our  transgression,"  in  all  the  leading  crises 
of  His  life — in  the  temptation,  in  the  scene  upon  Mount 
Olivet  when  He  wept  over  Jerusalem,  in  the  agony  of 
Gethsemane,  and  in  the  crucifixion.  His  Incarnation,  we 
are  told,  put  Him  in  the  compass  of  all  that  belongs  to  the 
solidarity  of  the  curse,  except  that  He  is  touched  by  none 
of  its  contaminations.4  "  Under  the  curse  He  feels  as  if  the 
condemnations  of  God  were  upon  Him — as  they  are  in  all 
the  solidarities  of  the  race  into  which  He  is  come."5  "  He 
suffers  all  the  suffering  of  mankind;  not  as  we  do,  in  mere 
sympathy  with  the  suffering  itself,  but  as  beholding  it  in 
its  guilty  causes, — a  suffering  in  which  the  displeasures  of 
God  and  His  compassions  are  united,  by  a  conjunction  that 
is  itself  the  utmost  possibility  of  suffering.'6  Here  is  a 
sufficiently  distinct  recognition  of  the  subjective  imputation 
of  sin  to  Himself  by  Christ,  who,  according  to  the  theory, 
looks  on  Himself  throughout  life  as  under  the  curse,  the 
penal  shame  and  disaster  of  transgression,  the  condemna- 
tions and  displeasures  of  God.  The  author  seems  inclined 
to  go  even  further  than  this,  and  to  admit  that  Christ's 
sufferings  in  these  penal  aspects  were  appointed  by  God, 
and  in  some  sense  a  divine  infliction.  When  the  prophet 
says,  "  He  was  wounded  for  our  transgressions,  and  bruised 
for  our  iniquities,"  it  is  not  to  be  doubted  that  he  conceives 

1  Forgiveness  and  Law,  p.  12.  J  Ibid.  p.  12. 

3  For  illustrations,  see  pp.  40-48  of  the  work. 

4  Forgiveness  and  Law,  p.  151.  6  Ibid.  p.  155. 
6  Ibid.  p.  155. 


324  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

some  kind  of  penal  infliction  in  the  suffering  endured.1  The 
only  thing  doubted  is,  whether  "it  is  the  penalty  of  our 
state  of  discipline,  or  of  justice  itself."  Bushnell  stren- 
uously maintains  the  former  alternative.  Conceding  that 
Christ's  sufferings  were  penal,  not  only  to  His  feelings, 
but  by  God's  will,  he  contends  that  they  were  not  judicial, 
but  merely  penal-sanction  sufferings — just  the  inverse  of 
the  position  taken  up  by  Archbishop  Magee.  He  holds 
that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  judicial  suffering  in  this 
world,  strict  justice  being  reserved  for  the  world  to  come. 
Here  men  are  under  a  scheme  of  "probatory  discipline," 
and  all  the  sufferings  they  undergo  are  of  a  disciplinary 
character.  The  curse  of  the  law  is  not  the  justice  of  God, 
but  simply  the  penal-sanction  discipline  we  are  under.1 
And  what  is  true  of  us  is  true  of  Christ.  His  suffering  may 
legitimately  enough,  perhaps,  be  regarded  as  a  divine  in- 
fliction, but  it  does  not  follow  that  the  infliction  is  judicial 
penalty;  for  it  can  as  well  be  penal-sanction  suffering,  as 
we  certainly  know  that  all  other  suffering  in  this  world  is.* 
"  The  retributive  liability  He  is  in,  is  indeed  severe  enough 
to  bear  even  a  look  of  justice.  We  only  happen  to  know 
that  no  suffering  of  our  own  under  the  curse  is  justice,  and 
that  He  is  suffering  with  us  in  our  lot  as  it  is.  If  we  call 
it  penal,  as  I  have  called  the  disciplinary  sanction  arranged 
for,  it  is  not  the  penalty  of  justice."4 

From  this  account  of  the  latest  speculations  of  this  very 
able  and  earnest  American  theologian  two  inferences  may 
fairly  be  drawn.  One  is,  that  what  I  have  named  the 
subjective  imputation  of  sin  to  Himself  by  Christ,  will  ever 
appear,  on  due  consideration,  to  be  an  essential  element  of 
His  self-humiliation.  The  other  is,  that  it  will  be  found 
difficult  to  hold  a  subjective  imputation,  without  admitting 
a  corresponding  objective  imputation.  Once  reckon  it  as 
necessary  to  the  completeness  of  our  Lord's  humiliation 
that  He  should  become  like  unto  His  brethren,  even  to  the 
extent  of  reckoning  Himself  a  partaker  in  the  penal  con- 
sequences of  sin,  not  merely  as  evil,  but  as  penalty,  and 
you  are  forced  to  ask  yourself:  Does  this  subjective  con- 

1  Forgiveness  and  Lai v,  p.  1 70.  *  Ibid.  p.  166. 

3  Ibid.   p.  172.  4  Ibid.  p.  167. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  325 

sciousness  of  the  Saviour  answer  to  any  objective  law  or 
principle  of  divine  government  ?  or  is  it  merely  an  exagger- 
ated, though  amiable,  assertion  of  His  solidarity  with  the 
race,  on  the  part  of  one  who  burns  with  the  enthusiasm  of 
humanity  ?  The  latter  alternative  is  not  likely  to  commend 
itself  to  a  considerate  mind.  For  Christ  in  His  humiliation 
was  not  wilful.  He  was  not  a  "  voluntary"  in  His  humility. 
He  humbled  Himself  in  the  spirit  of  obedience,  doing, 
doubtless  con  amore,  what  was  required  of  Him,  but  not 
more  than  was  required  of  Him.  If  so,  then  it  was  the 
Father's  will  that  His  Son  should  be  on  earth  as  a  sinner, 
suffering  penalty  for  sin.  In  this  light  He  regarded  His 
Son  Himself;  in  this  way  He  would  have  His  Son  view  His 
own  position;  in  this  way  He  would  have  all  men  regard 
Him.  He  sent  Him  into  the  world,  as  it  were,  saying, 
"  Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  who  beareth  the  sin  of  the 
world." 

But,  all  this  conceded,  there  still  remains  the  great 
question,  In  what  sense  is  Christ  the  bearer  of  sin  by  divine 
appointment  ?  is  it  in  the  sense  of  suffering  for  sin  under 
a  judicial  infliction,  or  is  it  merely  in  the  sense  of  suffering 
under  the  penal  sanctions  of  this  present  state  of  probation- 
ary discipline  ?  The  question  here  has  reference  not  to 
what  Christ  suffered,  but  to  the  design  for  which  He 
suffered.  On  either  alternative  the  material  of  Christ's 
sufferings  may  be  the  same;  but  the  design  varies,  accord- 
ing as  we  adopt  the  one  or  the  other  mode  of  con- 
ceiving them.  If  we  conceive  those  sufferings  as  a  judicial 
infliction,  then  we  regard  them  as  a  ground  on  which  God, 
with  a  due  regard  to  the  claims  of  justice,  grants  remission 
of  sin,  involving  exemption  from  all  penal  consequences, 
and  especially  from  the  wrath  to  come.  If  we  conceive 
the  sufferings  as  simply  amounting  to  participation  in  the 
penal  sanctions  of  a  disciplinary  state,  then  their  design 
may  be  simply  to  enhance  the  moral  power  of  the  sufferer 
to  bring  us  out  of  our  sins,  and  so,  as  a  matter  of  course, 
out  of  their  penal  retributions,  temporal  and  eternal.  Christ 
comes  down  to  our  level  in  order  that  He  may  lift  us  to 
His.  Finding  us  under  the  law,  under  the  curse,  under  a 
system  of  penal  sanctions  expressive  of  divine  displeasure 


326  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

against  sin,  yet  remedial  in  their  aim,  He  Himself  comes  un- 
der the  law,  the  curse,  the  penal  sanctions;  that  He  may,  by 
the  moral  power  thus  gained,  raise  us  out  of  law  into  liberty, 
out  of  the  curse  into  the  blessedness  of  holiness,  out  of 
penal  sanctions  into  the  privileges  of  sonship.  This  latter 
design  is  thought  to  be  eminently  worthy  of  God,  while  the 
former  is  denounced  as  utterly  unworthy  of  the  First  Cause 
and  Last  End  of  all. 

Does  the  case  indeed  stand  so  ?  Must  we,  as  an  increas- 
ing number  of  voices  declare,  give  up  the  celebrated  doc- 
trine of  satisfaction  as  indefensible,  and,  in  particular,  as 
derogatory  to  the  divine  wisdom  ?  This  is  a  question  which 
cannot  be  adequately  discussed  here;  but  a  kw  general 
observations  may  be  submitted,  with  special  reference  to 
the  bearing  of  the  subject  upon  the  character  of  the  supreme 
Ruler  of  the  universe.  That  it  became  Him  for  whom  are 
all  things,  and  by  whom  are  all  things,  for  one  reason  or 
another,  to  subject  the  Captain  of  salvation  to  a  curriculum 
of  suffering,  is  generally  admitted.  The  point  in  dispute  is, 
whether  it  became  Him  to  subject  the  Saviour  of  men  to 
suffering  in  the  form  of  legal  penalty  for  sin.  Now  here  it 
greatly  behoves  us  to  recall  to  mind  that  expression  of  the 
Apostle  Paul's,  already  casually  referred  to,  wherein  he 
speaks  of  the  work  of  redemption  through  Christ,  as  con- 
taining a  revelation  or  exhibition  of  the  manifold,  many- 
sided,  or,  many-coloured  wisdom  of  God — ?}  Tto\vTtoim\o% 
6oq>ia  rov  GeoO.  The  precise  connection  of  thought  in  which 
the  expression  occurs  it  is  not  necessary  to  point  out;  it 
bears  the  stamp  of  a  phrase  coined  by  the  apostle,  to 
embody  the  feeling  produced  in  his  mind,  by  deep  and  pro- 
tracted reflection  on  the  gracious  purpose  of  God  in  Jesus 
Christ.  After  long,  rapt  meditation  on  the  sublime  theme, 
Paul  feels  that  the  divine  idea  of  redemption  has  many 
aspects.  The  pure  light  of  divine  wisdom  revealed  in  the 
gospel  is  resolvable  into  many  coloured  rays,  which  to- 
gether constitute  a  glorious  spectrum  presented  to  the 
admiring  view  of  principalities  and  powers  in  heavenly 
places,  and  of  all  men  on  earth  whose  eyes  have  been 
opened  to  see  it.  Entering  intc  the  apostle's  mind  on  this 
great  theme,  we  too  should  come  to  the  study  of  our  Lord's 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  hi  its  Official  Aspect.  327 

sufferings,  prepared  to  find  therein  a  many-sided  revelation 
of  divine  wisdom:  not  merely  the  righteous  One  suffering 
for  righteousness'  sake  at  the  hands  of  the  unrighteous;  or 
the  Holy  one  suffering  sympathetically  with  the  unholy, 
that  He  may  win  their  confidence;  or  a  revelation  of  divine 
love  in  self-sacrifice,  meant  to  overcome  the  distrust  with 
which  human  beings  regard  the  Deity,  and  assure  them  of 
His  good  will;  or  the  Son  of  God  stooping  to  conquer, 
voluntarily  humbling  Himself,  because  that  is  the  way  to 
gain  sovereignty  over  human  hearts,  and  to  obtain  the 
highest  of  all  dominion — that,  viz.,  which  wields  sway 
through  moral  influence,  not  through  mere  physical  force; 
or  a  contrivance  for  securing  that  the  pardon  of  sin  shall 
not  be  prejudicial  to  the  interests  of  government  and  good 
morals;  or,  "  a  sacrifice  to  satisfy  divine  justice:"  but  all 
these  together.  Why  not  look  on  the  cross  as  a  prism  which 
analyzes  the  light  of  divine  wisdom  into  all  these  coloured 
rays,  and  possibly  into  others  whose  presence  we  may  have 
hitherto  failed  to  detect;  so,  in  place  of  insisting  that 
Christ's  earthly  sufferings  could  serve  only  one  end,  acting 
as  if  we  believed  that  the  greater  the  number  of  ends  served 
in  mutual  harmony,  the  more  these  sufferings  became  Him 
who,  as  the  First  Cause  and  Last  End  of  all,  appointed 
them  as  means  to  accomplish  His  own  wise  purposes  ? 
Unity  amid  variety  is  doubtless  to  be  desired;  and  if  we 
can  get  one  theoretic  principle  from  which  we  can  deduce 
all  particulars  as  corollaries,  it  is  well;  but  meantime  it  is 
most  important  to  take  heed  that  we  exclude  none  of  the 
facts,  and  that  our  induction  of  particulars  be  complete.  If 
we  be  at  a  loss  as  to  which  aspect  of  the  subject  should  be 
placed  first,  as  the  most  important,  let  us  at  least  be  care- 
ful to  omit  none  of  the  aspects.  Perhaps  in  past  times 
theologians  have  been  more  anxious  to  have  their  cut  and 
dry  theory,  than  to  make  a  full  collection  of  the  facts;  and 
it  is  gratifying,  therefore,  to  find  recent  inquirers  on  this 
as  on  other  theological  subjects,  preferring  the  inductive 
to  the  deductive  method,  according  to  which,  in  the  words 
of  Professor  Crawford,  who  has  himself  adopted  this  method, 
"  we  first  of  all  address  ourselves  to  the  actual  statements 
of  Holy  Scripture  upon  the  subject, — deferring  in  the  mean- 


328'  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

while  all  theories  and  assumptions, — and  endeavour,  by  a 
fair  examination  and  a  careful  comparison  and  classification 
of  these  statements,  to  arrive  at  such  conclusions  as  are 
deducible  from  them."  l 

Now  it  would  certainly  be  very  surprising  if  it  should 
turn  out,  as  the  result  of  such  an  induction,  that  the  suffer- 
ings of  Christ  stood  in  no  relation  to  the  attributes  of  divine 
holiness  and  justice.  One  would  expect  to  find  the  satis- 
factory manifestation  of  these  attributes  taking  its  place 
among  the  ends  for  the  accomplishment  of  which  it  became 
the  Supreme  to  make  the  Captain  of  salvation  a  sufferer, 
alongside  the  manifestation  of  divine  compassion  in  sympa- 
thizing with  man's  misery,  and  of  divine  mercy  in  forgiving 
man's  sin,  and  of  divine  condescension  in  stooping  to  man's 
low  level,  and  of  divine  love  in  bearing  man's  woe.  Why 
should  the  cross  reveal  all  these  last-named  attributes,  and 
not  also  God's  holy  hatred  of  sin,  and  His  justice  in  punish- 
ing sin  ?  In  revealing  these  not  less  than  those,  does  it  not 
only  the  more  completely  display  the  divine  wisdom,  by  ex- 
hibiting that  attribute  as  one  which  can  accomplish  many 
different  ends  by  one  and  the  same  means  ?  If  Christ 
crucified  be  the  wisdom  of  God  as  satisfying  His  love  through 
self-sacrifice,  is  He  not  still  more  the  wisdom  of  God  in 
satisfying  at  once  both  His  love  and  His  J7istice — His  love, 
by  suffering  in  sympathy  with  the  sinner's  misery;  His 
justice,  by  suffering  penalty  for  sin  in  the  sinner's  stead  ? a 

To  this  it  may  be  replied:  Yes,  were  the  two  ends  com- 

1  The  Atonement,  p.  3. 

2  Some  may  prefer  to  make  the  reference  to  justice  spring  out  of  the  idea  of 
love.  In  this  way  is  the  subject  regarded  in  a  recent  American  publication  which 
I  have  read  with  very  great  pleasure:  Old  Faiths  in  New  Light,  by  Newman 
Smith  (Scribner,  New  York).  Mr.  Smith  says:  "In  thinking  of  the  ways  of  God 
which  meet  in  the  Incarnation,  our  all-illumining  conception  must  be  derived 
from  the  purest  human  experience  of  love.  .  .  .  Now  human  love  has  in  it  three 
essential  elements;  there  are  three  primary  colours  in  love's  perfect  light;  and 
these  three  are,  the  giving  of  self,  or  benevolence;  the  putting  self  in  another's 
place,  sympathy,  or  the  vicanousness  of  love;  and  the  assertion  of  the  worth  of 
the  gift,  of  the  self  which  is  given — self-respect,  or  the  righteousness  of  love.  Under 
the  conception  of  vicariousness,  and  the  assertion  of  its  own  worth  involved  in  per- 
fect love,  the  Christian  doctrines  of  Atonement  and  Redemption  need  to  be  re- 
garded ;  and  when  considered  from  any  lower  point  of  view,  as  that  of  law  or  gov- 
ernment,  the  sacrificial  work  of  Christ  is  hardly  lifted  out  of  difficulties  and  snadowi 
into  a  pure  moral  light." — P.  277. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  329 

patible;  but  they  are  not.  The  dogma  of  satisfaction,  in  the 
ecclesiastical  sense,  makes  God  a  merchant  of  Venice,  who 
stands  for  justice,  and  demands  the  pound  of  flesh  from 
one  quarter  or  another — just,  but  utterly  ungenerous;  nay, 
not  even  just,  for  the  dogma  involves  the  perpetration  of 
the  injustice  of  inflicting  upon  the  innocent  penalty  due  to 
the  guilty — an  injustice  miserably  cloaked  by  the  theologic 
fiction  of  imputation.  Now,  certainly  any  theory  which 
were  justly  chargeable  with  degrading  the  Most  High  into 
a  Merchant  of  Venice,  would  be  worthy  only  of  reprobation. 
But  before  condemnation  is  pronounced,  care  must  be 
taken  to  ascertain  that  it  is  not  a  case  of  extremes  meeting. 
What  if  the  two  characters  compared  meet  in  the  one  point 
of  standing  for  justice,  and  be  in  all  other  respects  the  moral 
antipodes  of  each  other  ?  The  fact  is  even  so.  What  God 
demands  is,  as  we  shall  see,  not  the  exact  pound  of  flesh, 
neither  more  nor  less;  and  what  He  does  demand,  He  takes 
not  from  any  quarter,  even  from  an  enemy,  but  from  the 
heart  of  His  own  beloved  Son.  A  similar  observation  may- 
be made  in  reply  to  Ritschl's  objection,  that  the  orthodox 
doctrine  makes  God  a  Pharisee,  who  will  have  dealings 
only  with  perfectly  righteous  men.1  Here  again  we  have 
a  case  of  extremes  meeting.  It  is  quite  true  in  one  sense 
that  God  has  dealings  only  with  the  morally  perfect;  for, 
as  Schleiermacher  has  said,  Only  the  complete  can  stand 
before  Him.2  But  herein  God  differs  toto  coelo  from  the 
Pharisee,  that  He  has  taken  pains  to  establish  a  mediated 
fellowship  with  the  imperfect  through  the  perfect  One. 
We  are  "  accepted  in  the  Beloved."  God  hath  dealings 
with  the  sinful  in  such  a  way  that  His  zeal  for  holiness  is 
above  suspicion.  While  holding  loving  intercourse  with 
the  morally  defective,  He  keeps  the  realized  Ideal  of 
moral  excellence  ever  in  His  eye,  and  requires  us  to  do  the 
same,  that  we  may  know  our  standing  to  be,  not  on  our 
merit,  or  on  divine  laxity,  but  on  divine  grace.  How 
different  from  the  Pharisee  is  God  in  all  this  !  Pharisaic 
righteousness    is    exclusive;    God's    righteousness    is    self- 

1  Lehre  von  der  Rechtfertigung  und  VersOhnung,  vol.  ii.  p.  312,  iii.  p.  96. 

2  Der  christliche  Giaube,  ii.  p.  135:  Nur  das  Vollkommne  vor  Gott  vorstehen 
kann. 


330  TJic  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

communicative.  The  Pharisee  knows  of  no  way  to  show 
his  love  for  righteousness,  other  than  by  holding  aloof  from 
the  unrighteous.  God,  in  His  beloved  Son,  makes  such  a 
manifestation  of  His  righteousness,  that  He  appears  at  once 
as  a  just  God  and  as  a  Saviour;  righteous,  and  making 
righteous  him  that  believeth  on  Jesus,  accepting  the  un- 
righteous for  the  sake  of  His  righteous  One. 

But  the  main  stress  of  the  objection  to  the  Catholic  doc- 
trine is  not  directed  against  the  idea  of  God  being  well 
pleased  with  the  imperfect  out  of  regard  to  the  perfect  One; 
for  what  else  but  this  is  meant  by  Ritschl's  own  doctrine, 
that  God  imputes  to  sinners  their  fellowship  with  Christ  as 
a  ground  for  a  fellowship  between  them  and  Himself  ?  The 
offence  lies  in  the  idea  of  the  innocent  suffering  in  the  place 
of  the  guilty,  as  if  their  unrighteousness  were  imputed  to 
Him,  and  made  a  ground  of  penal  procedure  against  Him. 
But  are  not  the  two  imputations  one  in  principle  ?  does 
not  the  one  imply  the  other  ?  Ritschl,  indeed,  as  we  have 
seen,1  will  not  hear  of  an  imputation  of  Christ's  righteous- 
ness to  us,  but  only  of  an  imputation  of  our  fellowship  with 
Him.  Be  it  so;  the  question  then  takes  this  shape:  If  our 
fellowship  with  Christ  may  be  imputed  to  us  as  a  ground 
of  favour  before  God,  may  not  Christ's  fellowship  with  us 
be  imputed  to  Him  as  a  ground  why  He  should  become  in 
a  judicial  sense  the  bearer  of  our  iniquities  ?  Of  the  reality 
of  the  fellowship  there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  innocent  One 
who  suffers  for  the  guilty  is  no  stranger  who  has  fortunately 
been  discovered  somewhere  in  the  universe,  and  found  will- 
ing to  become  the  sacrificial  victim.  He  is  a  kinsman  of 
the  guilty,  one  with  them  not  only  in  sympathy,  but  also 
by  divine  appointment,  as  truly  as  the  members  of  one 
family  are  brethren.  This  fact  helps  at  least  to  explain 
the  strange  phenomenon  of  innocence  suffering  for  guilt. 
It  were  too  much  to  say  that  the  covenant  oneness  be- 
tween Christ  and  sinners  makes  everything  axiomatically 
plain;  for,  as  Professor  Crawford  has  pointed  out,  by  con- 
necting our  Lord's  sufferings  with  a  covenant,  we  shift  the 
difficulty  rather  than  solve  it.2  The  question  may  be 
raised  regarding  such  a  covenant,  Was  it  not  a  pactum  il* 

1    Vid.  o.  312.  -  The  Atonement,  p.  144. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  331 

licitum  ?  But  it  is  going  too  far  on  the  other  hand  to  say, 
that  the  idea  of  a  covenant  does  not  in  the  smallest  degree 
help  to  clear  up  the  mysteriousness  of  Christ's  sufferings  in 
the  room  of  the  guilty.  It  renders  this  service  at  least, 
that  it  brings  those  sufferings  within  the  scope  of  inal- 
ogies,  which  help  us  to  see  that  they  are  in  harmony  with 
the  world  in  which  we  live.  For  it  is  a  fact,  that  the  closer 
men  are  connected  by  family,  social,  or  political  ties,  the 
more  they  are  dealt  with,  under  divine  Providence,  as  a 
joint-stock  company  both  for  good  and  for  evil.  Whether 
this  be  just  or  not  according  to  our  notions,  it  is,  at  all 
events,  the  sort  of  justice  that  is  agoing.  It  is  something 
to  see  this.  It  helps  us  to  abstain  from  dogmatizing,  and 
to  submit  to  a  mystery  which  we  cannot  understand.  But 
we  are  not  under  the  necessity  of  resigning  ourselves,  per- 
manently, to  the  despairing  attitude  of  men  who  regard 
divine  justice  as  something  simply  inscrutable.  On  patient 
inquiry,  we  find  that  this  perplexing  sort  of  justice,  which 
looks  so  very  like  injustice,  has  a  good  deal  to  say  for  it- 
self. It  is  less  than  just,  only  because  it  is  a  great  deal 
more.  The  constitution  under  which  we  live,  in  nature  and 
in  grace,  departs  from  the  s^ict  rule  of  retributive  justice 
which  renders  to  each  man  according  to  his  works,  in  the 
interest  of  that  great  principle  of  love  for  which  alone,  ac- 
cording to  many,  God  has  any  regard.  While  inflicting  on 
involuntary  sufferers  much  suffering  which  they  may  gloom- 
ily regard  as  a  dismal  fate,  it  supplies  to  love,  willing  to 
suffer,  a  glorious  opportunity,  making  it  possible  for  one  to 
do  good  to  others  by  prayer,  like  Abraham;  by  character, 
like  David;  by  holy  obedience  in  life  and  death,  like  the 
great  Captain  of  salvation.1     Such  a  constitution  is  worthy 

1  The  principle  of  vicariousness  is  involved  in  intercessory  prayer  not  less  than 
in  the  doctrine  of  atonement,  and  it  admits  of  the  same  defence  in  the  one  case  as 
in  the  other — viz.  that  its  recognition  by  God  affords  opportunity  and  stimulus  to 
love.  On  this  aspect  of  the  subject  Dr.  Price  has  some  good  observations  in  his 
Dissertation  on  Prayer.  To  the  question  of  a  supposed  objector  to  intercessory 
prayer,  What  influence  can  our  prayers  have  on  the  state  of  others  ?  he  replies  by 
pointing  out  that  it  is  not  necessary  to  suppose  that  the  treatment  which  beings 
shall  receive  depends  in  all  cases  solely  on  what  they  are  in  themselves;  that  though 
this  is  what  the  universal  Governor  chiefly  regards,  it  is  not  all;  and  that  while 
there  are  some  benefits  which  no  means  can  obtain  for  beings  who  have  not  cer- 
tain qualifications,  there  are  others  which  one  being  may  obtain  for  another.     He 


332  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

of  Him  for  whom  are  all  things,  and  by  whom  are  all  things. 
It  is  a  constitution  based  on  grace,  and  pervaded  by  grace 
throughout.  This  holds  true  even  with  regard  to  the 
covenant  of  works,  which  we  are  accustomed  to  set  in  con- 
trast to  the  covenant  of  grace.  There  was  grace  even  in 
that  earliest  covenant  in  this  respect  among  others,  that  it 
held  the  race  to  be  represented  by  its  first  individual  mem- 
ber as  its  head.  That  procedure  was  not  according  to  the 
strict  rule  of  retributive  justice,  which  renders  to  each  man, 
as  an  isolated  unit,  according  to  his  individual  desert;  but 
it  was  a  procedure  subservient  to  the  purposes  of  grace,  for 
it  caused  sin  and  the  curse  to  abound,  that  grace  might 
superabound.  And  grace  was  not  tardy  in  beginning  its 
benign  sway.  It  came  into  play  from  the  moment  Adam 
fell.  The  second  Adam  began  His  reign  of  grace  the  day 
sin  entered  the  world,  producing  by  His  secret  influence, 
long  before  He  came  in  the  flesh,  effects  which  are  unde- 
niable as  facts,  but  which  are  not  always  traced  to  their 
true  cause.  Bushnell  and  Ritschl  both  tell  us  that  God's 
dealings  with  mankind  in  this  life  are  not  of  a  strictly  ju- 
dicial character,  that  mercy  is  largely  mingled  with  judg- 
ment, and  that  wrath,  in  the^absolute  sense,  is  a  thing  to 
come.  The  latter  of  these  writers  even  goes  so  far  as  to 
say,  that  the  very  idea  of  retributive  justice  is  hardly  to  be 
found  in  Scripture,  being  traceable  only  in  one  or  two  texts 
in  Paul's  Epistles,  where  for  the  moment  he  accommodates 
himself  to  the  Pharisaic  standpoint  of  the  unchristian  Jews 
with  whom  he  is  arguing.  Righteousness  as  an  attribute 
of  God,  according  to  Scripture  usage  as  interpreted  by 
Ritschl,  signifies  the  consistency  with  which  God  conducts 
His  federally  faithful  people  to  their  promised  destiny,  and 
is  substantially  the  same  thing  as  grace.1  How  differently 
different  men  read  the  Bible  !  Matthew  Arnold  sees  in 
the    Old    Testament    nothing   but   a    Power    making   for 

then  goes  on  to  say:  "  The  whole  scheme  of  nature  seems  to  be  contrived  on  pur- 
pose in  such  a  manner  as  that  beings  might  have  it  in  their  power  in  numberless 
ways  to  bless  one  another.  .  .  .  One  end  of  this  constitution  appears  plainly  to 
be,  to  give  us  room  and  scope  for  the  exercise  of  beneficence." — Four  Disserta- 
tions,  p.  233,  2d  edition. 

1   Die  ckristhche  Lehre  von  der  Recht/ertigung  und  VersOhnung,  ii.  pp.  10^ 
no,  conf.  iii.  412. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  333 

righteousness,  in  the  sense  of  tending  to  make  character 
and  lot  correspond — that  is,  to  render  to  men,  individually 
and  collectively,  according  to  their  works.  Ritschl  sees 
in  the  same  Scriptures  nothing  but  Grace,  tending  to  con- 
duct a  chosen  race  to  the  attainment  of  an  unmerited  good. 
Each  has  seen  but  half  the  truth,  though  the  theologian 
certainly  comes  nearer  the  truth  than  the  litterateury  for 
the  distinctive  idea  of  revealed  religion  is  God  manifesting 
Himself  as  the  God  of  grace.  But  passing  from  this,  and 
reverting  to  the  statement  that  God's  dealings  with  the 
race  in  this  world  are  not  of  a  strictly  or  exclusively  ju- 
dicial character,  I  remark  that  such  is  the  blessed  fact. 
Though  the  fallen  race  is  under  the  divine  displeasure,  it 
is  also  to  a  large  extent  under  divine  mercy:  God  is  good 
to  all,  and  His  tender  mercies  are  over  all  His  works.1  He 
is  gracious,  and  full  of  compassion,  slow  to  anger,  and  of 
great  mercy,2  to  such  an  extent  that  His  patience  has  often 
been  a  stumbling-block  and  an  offence  to  the  good;  as  to 
Job,  who  asked  in  wonder  why  God  did  not  appoint  peri- 
odic times  of  judgment,  when,  like  a  judge  on  circuit,  He 
might  try  the  wicked,  and  punish  them  for  their  iniquities;  * 
and  to  Jonah,  who  deserted  God's  service,  giving  as  a  rea- 
son, "  For  I  knew  that  Thou  art  a  gracious  God,  and  mer- 
ciful, slow  to  anger,  and  of  great  kindness,  and  repentest 
Thee  of  the  evil."  4  But,  what  is  the  rationale  of  this  di- 
vine patience  ?  God's  patience  with  a  sinful  world,  from 
the  beginning  had  its  ground  in  Christ;  even  as,  after 
Christ's  advent  in  the  flesh,  it  received  its  justification 
through  His  sacrifice  on  Calvary.  Hence  the  divine  wink- 
ing at  heathen  ignorance  and  idolatry;6  hence  the  divine 
forbearance  with  the  sin  of  pre-Christian  times;6  hence  the 
divine  patience  with  the  chosen  people,  under  the  ever-ac- 
cumulating load  of  unexpiated  transgression,  with  which 
the  inheritance  was  so  heavily  burdened  as  to  be  of  little 
value  to  the  heir;7  hence  the  continued  existence  of  the 
fallen  race,  banished  from  Paradise  and  under  the  curse, 
yet  under  a  curse  much  and  many  ways  modified,  insomuch 

1  Ps.  cxlv.  9.  2  Ps  cxlv.  8.  s  job  xxiv.  i. 

4  Jonah  iv.  2.  «  Acts  xvii.  30.  e  Rom.  iii.  25. 

7  Heb.  ix.  15. 


334  The  Humiliation  of  Christ* 

that  Zuingli  felt  emboldened  to  say,  that  while  original 
sin  by  itself  would  have  made  all  men  damnable,  it  does 
not  in  fact,  because  of  the  plan  of  redemption.  The  se- 
cret of  all  this  marvellous  forbearance  with  a  dark,  wicked 
world  was  the  Son  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  a  mystery 
hid  for  many  generations  from  men,  so  that  it  exercised 
little  power  over  them  as  a  subjective  influence,  except 
as  the  object  of  a  dim  starlight  hope  or  presentiment;  a 
mystery  hid  in  God,  but  not  hid  from  Him,  but,  on  the 
contrary,  determining  His  attitude  towards,  and  influenc- 
ing His  dealings  with,  the  world,  as  truly  before  as  it  has 
done  since  the  Incarnation.1  All  this  vast  influence  on  the 
fortunes  of  the  human  race  Christ  exercised,  as  the  Lamb 
slain,  from  the  foundation  of  the  world.  As  the  Logos  of 
God,  He  made  the  worlds;  as  the  Son  of' God,  He  upheld 
all  things  by  the  word  of  His  power;  as  the  Lamb  of  God, 
He  secured  for  a  guilty  race  that  it  should  have  a  history, 
and  a  history  which,  while  bearing  abundant  traces  of  di- 
vine displeasure,  should  not  less  manifestly  wear  upon  it  a 
stamp  of  divine  patience,  goodness,  and  mercy.  Hence, 
when  the  Lamb  was  actually  slain  in  the  fulness  of  time, 
the  event  was  what  the  Apostle  Paul  calls  a  declaration 
of  God's  righteousness  in  His  relation  to  the  pre-Christian 
world.2  It  revealed  the  true  ground  of  the  divine  proce- 
dure, and,  if  we  may  so  say,  redeemed  the  divine  character 
from  the  charge  of  laxity,  as  if  God  had  behaved  Himself 
towards  men  like  an  absolute  but  benignant  despot,  deal- 
ing leniently  with  his  slaves,  partly  in  lofty  contempt, 
partly  in  humane  pity;  by  showing  that  in  all  His  dealings 
with  men,  wherein  He  dealt  not  with  them  after  their  sins,  He 
had  regard  to  the  perfect  One  who,  in  the  end  of  the 
world,  was  to  appear  to  atone  for  sin  by  the  sacrifice  of 
Himself.  Be  it  observed,  this  is  not  to  degrade  Christ's 
sacrifice  into  a  governmental  display  intended  to  act  on 
men's  fears,  and  prevent  them  from  abusing  divine  good- 
ness. An  atonement  after  the  fashion  of  a  governmental 
display  has  no  effect  on  God,  and  it  has  an  effect  on  men 
only  after  the  display  has  been  made;  and  it  affects  them 
by  making  them  believe  that  God  is  more  severe  than  ex 
1  Eph.  iii.  9.  s  Rom.  iii.  25,  26. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  335 

hypothesi  He  really  is.  The  atonement  made  by  Christ  was  a 
display  of  God's  righteousness,  in  Paul's  sense,  as  revealing 
the  hidden  ground  of  past  forbearance  on  God's  part  towards 
men,  clearing  God's  action  of  all  appearance  of  laxity,  and 
making  manifest  that  He  was  in  reality  more  severe  than 
He  seemed.  And  it  accomplished  all  this,  just  because  the 
Lamb  of  God,  in  His  sacrifice,  was  the  subject  of  judicial 
dealing,  bearing  on  Him  the  sin  of  the  world.  God  was 
justified  in  not  dealing  with  men  after  their  sins,  by  deal- 
ing with  the  sinless  One  as  a  sinner.  Christ  suffering  under 
a  penal-sanction  discipline  would  not  have  served  the  pur- 
pose. This  view  makes  Christ  simply  one  factor  in  the 
world's  moral  education,  coming  in  at  the  proper  juncture 
and  exercising  a  critical  influence  on  the  process,  from  that 
point  onwards;  contemplated  by  God  from  the  first  in  that 
capacity,  but  exercising  no  influence  whatever  on  the  earlier 
stages  of  the  process.  In  Paul's  view,  Christ  is  the  main- 
spring of  all  human  history,  the  hidden  ground  of  the  di- 
vine attitude  and  procedure  towards  the  world  from  the 
first;  not  merely  the  power  <?/God  since  His  Incarnation, 
but  a  power  with  God,  as  the  Lamb  slain  by  foreordination, 
from  the  creation  onwards  through  all  the  pre-Christian 
ages. 

But  supposing  it  to  be  conceded  that  Christ,  as  the  sin- 
bearer  in  the  eye  of  law,  exercised  a  controlling  influence 
on  the  whole  history  of  God's  relations  to  the  world,  an 
important  question  still  remains,  viz.  how  far  is  Christ's 
position  as  the  sin-bearer  reconcilable  with  His  own  per- 
sonal relation  to  His  heavenly  Father,  which,  as  exhibited 
in  the  gospel  history,  was  one  of  perfect,  unbroken  mutual 
fellowship  ?  Now,  in  proceeding  to  make  some  observa- 
tions on  this  delicate  topic,  I  remark  at  the  outset,  that  the 
fact  as  to  Christ's  relationship  to  His  Father  is  as  stated, 
and  that  it  must  fare  badly  with  any  theory  which  cannot 
afford  to  make  this  admission.  Throughout  His  life  on 
earth  Jesus  loved  His  Father  with  His  whole  heart,  and 
believed  Himself  to  be  so  loved  in  turn  by  His  Father.  In 
this  respect  the  relation  between  Father  and  Son  continued 
as  it  was  before  the  Incarnation.  The  only  difference  pro- 
duced by  that  event  was,  that  in  the  incarnate  state  the 


336  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

Son  had  to  maintain  His  fellowship  oflove  with  His  Fathef 
through  faith,  and  amid  experiences  by  which  His  faith 
was  more  or  less  severely  tried.  The  capacity  of  sin-bearer, 
in  which  He  underwent  those  experiences,  did  not  alter  the 
relation;  for  if  Christ  was  in  fact  legally  the  sin-bearer 
while  on  earth,  He  was  the  sin-bearer  by  destination  before 
He  came  into  the  world;  and  if  the  purpose  understood  on 
both  sides  was  compatible  with  perfect  fellowship,  while  the 
Son  was  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  why  should  its  ex- 
ecution in  time  interrupt  the  good  understanding  ?  We 
must  here  recall  to  mind  the  truth  set  forth  in  our  eighth 
axiom,  that  Christ's  state  of  humiliation  was  at  the  same 
time  a  state  invested  with  moral  dignity  and  glory,  as  one 
in  which  He  had,  by  the  favour  of  His  Father,  an  oppor- 
tunity of  achieving  a  sublime  task,  in  His  high  and  hon- 
ourable calling  as  the  Captain  of  salvation.  Christ  Himself 
did  not  lose  sight  of  this  truth;  it  was  ever  present  to  His 
thoughts,  carrying  Him  through  the  hardest  experiences 
as  the  mere  incidents  of  a  congenial  vocation.  Hence, 
though  a  man  of  sorrow,  He  was  even  on  earth  anointed 
with  the  oil  of  gladness  above  His  fellows.  Does  this  seem 
strange  ?  Why,  even  Apollo,  unjustly  banished  from  heaven, 
and  cherishing  a  sense  of  injury  done  to  him  by  Jove,  in 
his  state  of  exile,  a  neatherd  in  the  service  of  Admetus,  is 
represented  by  the  poet  as  making  the  vale  of  Pheraea 
vocal  with  the  sweet  sounds  of  his  lute,  and  gathering  the 
wild  beasts  around  him  by  the  charms  of  celestial  music.1 
Shall  we  wonder  that  there  was  divine  gladness  in  the  heart 
of  Him  who  came  into  this  world,  not  by  constraint,  but 
willingly;  not  with  a  burning  sense  of  wrong,  but  with  a 
grateful  sense  of  high  privilege;  and  that  He  had  a  blessed 
consciousness  of  fellowship  with  His  Father,  who  sent  Him, 
during  the  whole  of  His  pilgrimage  through  this  vale  of 
tears  ?  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  the  position  assigned  to 
Christ  by  the  Catholic  theory  gives  to  His  suffering  experi- 
ence an  aspect  which  may  seem,  incompatible  with  such 
fellowship;  and  therefore  one  who  is  determined  to  hold 
by  the  latter  at  all  hazards  may  think  it  necessary  to  deny 
that  Christ  either  did  occupy  such  a  position  on  earth,  or 

1  Euripides,  Alcestis. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  337 

that  it  was  ever  intended  that  He  should  occupy  it.  For 
if  He  suffered  as  the  sin-bearer,  then  His  sufferings  were 
penal,  and  bore  to  His  view  the  aspect  of  an  expression  of 
divine  anger  against  sin.  But  the  notion  that  such  a  way  of 
viewing  His  sufferings  could  not  be  combined  in  the  Saviour's 
consciousness  with  a  fellowship  of  faith  and  love  towards 
His  Father,  while  not  unnatural,  is  nevertheless  mistaken, 
and  based  upon  misunderstanding.  For  two  things  must 
be  borne  in  mind  if  we  would  understand  this  matter  aright. 
One  is,  that  at  no  time  was  the  Saviour  the  object  of  His 
Father's  personal  displeasure.  This  must  be  held  to  be  a 
necessary  corollary  from  Christ's  personal  holiness,  and  as 
such  it  has  been  accepted  by  all  writers  who  have  handled 
this  topic  with  due  discrimination;  as,  e.  g.,  notably  by 
Calvin,  who  says:  "We  do  not  indeed  insinuate  that  God 
was  either  ever  opposed  to  or  angry  with  Him.  For  how 
could  He  be  angry  with  His  beloved  Son,  in  whom  His 
mind  rested  ?  or  how  could  Christ,  by  His  intercession, 
propitiate  for  others  a  Father  whom  He  had  as  an  enemy  to 
Himself?  "  The  true  relation  of  the  Saviour  to  the  divine 
anger  is  indicated  by  the  same  great  theologian  in  the  fol- 
lowing sentence  of  the  place  from  which  I  quote:  "  This 
we  say,  that  He  sustained  the  gravity  of  divine  severity; 
since,  being  stricken  and  afflicted  by  the  hand  of  God,  He 
experienced  all  the  signs  of  an  angry  and  punishing  God." ' 
The  other  thing  most  needful  to  be  borne  in  mind  is,  that 
Christ  was  under  the  anger  of  God,  in  the  sense  explained 
so  well  in  these  words  of  Calvin,  not  only  during  His  last 
sufferings,  but  during  the  whole  time  of  His  humiliation. 
It  is  true  that  the  extreme  and  most  striking  signs  of  divine 
anger  were  concentrated  in  the  brief  crisis  of  the  passion; 
the  only  signs  which  appear  to  have  put  a  very  severe 
strain  upon  the  Saviour's  faith,  and  in  connection  with 
which  His  consciousness  of  being  under  the  divine  anger 
against  sin,  found  unmistakable  expression  in  the  confes- 

1  Calvini  Institution  lib.  ii.  cap.  xvi.  n:  Neque  tamen  innuimus  Deum  fuisse 
unquam  illi  vel  adversarium  vel  iratum.  Quomodo  enim  dilecto  Filio,  in  que 
animus  ejus  acquievit,  irasceretur?  aut  quomodo  Christus  Patrem  aliis  sua  inter- 
cessione  placaret,  quern  ir.fensum  haberet  ipse  sibi  ?  Sed  hoc  nos  dicimus,  divinae 
severitatis  gravitatem  eum  sustinmsse:  quoniam  manu  Dei  percussus  et  afflictus. 
omnia  irati  et  punientis  Dei  signa  expertus  est. 


338  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

sion  of  weakness  in  Gethsemane,  and  in  the  complaints  of 
desertion  on  the  cross.     But  we  are  not  to  suppose  that, 
in  these  final  experiences,  new  not  in  kind  but  in  degree, 
the  Father  entered  into  a  new  relation  to  His  Son,  which 
was  the  cause  and  explanation  of  these  peculiar  experiences, 
and  of  them  alone.     The  relation  was  the  same  throughout, 
and  was  in  the  same  sense  cause  and  explanation  of  Christ's 
whole  state  of  humiliation.     Throughout  that  state  the  Son 
of  God  was  under  the  divine  anger  against  sin  manifesting 
itself  in  one  way  at  one  time,  in  another  way  at  another; 
sometimes  from  causes  which  we  can    understand,   some- 
times from  causes  which  are  unfathomable.     This  way  of 
looking   at    the  matter,  I  am   aware,   has    not   been  very 
generally  followed,  theologians;  for  the  most  part,  having 
treated    Christ's    experience    of  His    Father's   wrath  as  a 
special   item  in  His  humiliation,  which   He  underwent  in 
connection  with  the  crucifixion.     The  other  view,  however, 
according  to  which  the  wrath  of  God  embraces  the  whole 
state  of  humiliation,  under  a  certain  aspect,  has  not  been 
left  entirely  out  in  the  cold  by  theologians.     It  can  quote 
in  its  own  behalf  at  least  two  first-class  authorities  from 
the  sixteenth   century,  the  Heidelberg  Catechism  on  the 
Reformed  side,  and  Hutterus  as  representing  the  Lutherans; 
the  former  teaching  that  Christ,  during  the  whole  time  of 
His  life  on  earth,  but  especially  at  its  close,  sustained  in 
His  body  and  in  His  soul  the  anger  of  God  against  the  sin 
of  the   whole  human  race;1    the   latter   representing    our 
Saviour  as  truly  experiencing  the  sense  of  infernal  pains, 
not  for  a  moment,  or  some  small  space  of  time,  but  through- 
out the   whole   time   of  exinanition.2     The  same  idea  has 
been  reproduced  in  modern  times  by  at  least  two  German 
theologians,  Bodemeyer 3  and  Hofmann;  the  former  a  hyper- 
orthodox  Lutheran;  the  latter  occupying  an  independent 

'  See  Lecture  i.  of  this  course,  p.  37. 

2  Quoted  by  Schmid:  Die  Dogmatik  der  evangelisch-lutherischen  Kirchc,  5te 
Auf.  p.  303.  The  words  are:  Quemadmodum  sane  Christus  non  ad  momentum 
vel  exiguum  aliquod  temporis  spatium,  sed  per  omne  tempus  exinanitionis,  sensunj 
dolorum  istorum  infernalium  vere  subiit,  ita  ut  tandem  exclamare  necessum  hab- 
eret,  Deus  meus,  Deus  meus,  quare  me  dereliquisti  ? 

3  Die  Lehre  von  der  Kenosis  dargestellt,  Gflttingen  i860.  This  author  under* 
stands  the  kenosis  in  the  old  Lutheran  sense  of  Hpvrfn. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  339 

theological  view-point,  and  regarded  by  intelligent  readers 
as  making  important  approximations  to  orthodoxy;  while 
he  is  universally  admitted,  by  friends  and  foes  alike,  to  be 
worthy  of  all  honour  for  his  ability,  candour,  and  reverential 
regard  for  the  authority  of  Scripture.  Hofmann's  remarks 
on  this  subject  are  so  well  fitted  to  convey  a  distinct  idea 
of  what  is  meant  by  saying  that  Christ  was  under  the 
anger  of  God  throughout  His  life,  that  I  feel  tempted  to 
indulge  in  a  somewhat  lengthy  quotation,  all  the  more  that 
the  book  from  which  I  quote  is  not  likely  to  become  gen- 
erally known  in  this  country.  Contrasting  his  own  views 
with  those  of  Thomasius,  who  limits  Christ's  experience  of 
divine  wrath  to  the  passion,  Hofmann  says:  "  To  me,  that 
Christ  assumed  our  nature,  and  that  He  came  under  the 
anger  of  God,  are  one  and  the  same  thing.  Humanity 
being  under  God's  anger,  it  is  for  me  a  matter  of  course 
that  Christ's  entrance  into  humanity  is  a  self-subjection  to 
this  anger.  As,  now,  the  whole  history  of  the  Lord  is  the 
carrying  out  of  that  relation  to  His  Father,  in  which  He 
placed  Himself  by  His  Incarnation;  so  He  experienced, 
from  His  conception  to  His  death,  the  anger  of  the  Father 
against  humanity,  according  to  the  measure  of  the  progress 
of  His  history;  in  one  way  before  and  during  His  unfolding 
to  human  self-conscious  life,  otherwise  after  the  same;  in 
one  way  as  a  man  in  general,  otherwise  as  an  Israelite  in 
particular;  in  one  way  before  the  beginning  of  His  public 
life,  otherwise  in  the  course  of  the  same;  in  one  way  in  the 
time  of  His  work,  otherwise  in  the  hours  of  His  passion  and 
death.  Is  all  evil  in  the  world  effect  of  the  anger  of  God 
against  sinful  humanity  ? — then  all  experience  of  the  former 
is  experience  of  the  latter.  And  is  it  God's  anger  against 
sinful  humanity  which  brings  about  that  Satan  tempts  and 
opposes  us  ? — then  Christ  also  experienced  the  same  in  all 
the  temptations  and  assaults  of  Satan.  God's  anger  against 
sin  placed  Israel  under  the  law  of  commandments  and  pro- 
hibitions. Made  under  this  law,  Christ  stands  under  the 
wrath,  without  which  the  law  had  not  been.  God's  anger 
against  Israel's  transgression  of  the  law  brought  that  people 
into  misery.  This  anger  Jesus  felt  in  sharing  the  misery 
of  Israel  and  of  the  house  of  David.     Finally,  is  it  God's 


34-0  TJie  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

anger  against  sin  which  gives  the  righteous  up  to  the  un- 
righteous, that  the  latter  may  fill  up  the  measure  of  his 
iniquity  and  be  ripe  for  judgment  ? — even  so,  this  same 
anger  gives  Christ  up  to  His  enemies;  to  Satan  it  delivers 
Him  up  as  a  victim,  that  the  enmity  against  God,  and  what 
is  God's,  may  fill  up  its  cup  of  judgment.  For  in  both 
shows  itself  the  anger  of  God  against  sin;  that  it  forgives 
not  sin  without  Christ,  and  such  a  history  of  Christ:  and 
that  through  the  same  Christ  in  whom  God  makes  propitia- 
tion for  sin  for  the  benefit  of  the  penitent,  this  very  sin  in 
the  impenitent  reaches  the  point  at  which,  as  completed 
enmity  against  God,  it  is  given  over  to  final  judgment."1 
It  appears  to  me  that  the  way  of  viewing  the  present  topic, 
here  advocated  by  Hofmann,2  has  much  to  recommend  it; 
and  this  not  least,  that  it  enables  us  to  dispose  easily  of 
such  a  representation  of  the  Catholic  doctrine  as  is  given 
by  thoroughgoing  opponents — by  Martineau,  e.g.,  in  the 
following  horrible  sentences,  occurring  in  an  account  of  the 
orthodox  views  of  the  crucifixion  as  understood  by  him: 
"  The  anguish  He  endures  is  not  chiefly  that  which  falls 
so  poignantly  on  the  eye  and  ear  of  the  spectator;  the  in- 
jured human  affections,  the  dreadful  momentary  doubt; 
the  pulses  of  physical  torture  doubling  on  Him  with  full  or 
broken  wave,  till  driven  back  by  the  overwhelming  power 
of  love  disinterested  and  divine.  But  He  is  judicially 
abandoned  by  the  infinite  Father,  who  expends  on  Him 
the  immeasurable  wrath  due  to  an  apostate  race,  gathers 
up  into  an  hour  the  lightnings  of  eternity,  and  lets  them 
loose  upon  that  bended  head.  It  is  the  moment  of  retri- 
butive justice,  the  expiation  of  all  human  guilt;  that  open 
brow  hides  beneath  it  the  despair  of  millions  of  men,  and 
to  the  intensity  of  agony  there,  no  human  wail  could  give 
expression.  Meanwhile  the  future  brightens  on  the  elect; 
the  tempests  that  hung  over  their  horizon  are  spent.     The 

'  Schutzschriften,  Zweiter  Sliick.  pp.  94,  95.  The  Schriftbeweis  gave  rise  to 
considerable  controversy  in  Germany,  in  the  course  of  which  Hofmann  replied  to 
his  opponents,  and  gave  important  explanations  on  some  points  of  his  system. 
These  replies  were  published,  as  a  collection  of  pamphlets,  under  the  title 
Schutzschriften . 

2  It  is  adopted  also  by  Van  Oosterzee,  who  quotes  with  approval  the  passage  in 
which  it  is  taught  in  the  Heidelberg  Catechism.    Vid.  The  Image  of  Christ,  p.  254. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  341 

vengeance  of  the  Lawgiver  having  had  its  way,  the  sunshine 
of  a  Father's  grace  breaks  forth,  and  lights  up  with  hope 
and  beauty  the  earth,  which  had  been  a  desert  of  despair 
and  sin."1  Bear  in  mind  the  two  axioms  already  enunci- 
ated, that  Christ  was  at  no  time  the  object  of  His  Father's 
personal  displeasure,  but  suffered  only  the  signs — the  effect, 
not  the  affection — of  divine  anger;  and  that  He  suffered 
these  signs  in  one  form  or  another,  not  for  an  hour,  but  for 
a  lifetime;  and  the  force  of  the  above  passage,  as  a  refuta- 
tion, by  mere  statement,  of  the  orthodox  doctrine,  is  at 
once  seen  to  be  broken. 

But  does  the  orthodox  doctrine  not  preclude  us  from 
adopting  these  axioms,  especially  the  former  of  the  two  ? — 
Does  not  the  dogma  of  satisfaction  imply  that  Christ  suf- 
fered in  sinners'  stead  the  very  thing  that  they  should  have 
suffered — that  is  to  say,  real  positive,  unqualified  damna- 
tion, utter  separation  from  God  in  spiritual  death,  nay, 
even  eternal  death  itself?  It  suits  the  opponents  of  the 
dogma  to  say  so.  Thus  Ritschl  affirms  that  the  assump- 
tion that  Christ  experienced,  at  least  momentarily,  eternal 
damnation,  is  the  inevitable  condition  of  the  satisfactory 
value  of  His  sufferings  before  the  judgment  of  God;2  and 
Socinus,  to  whose  views  on  the  whole  subject  of  Christ's 
work  those  of  Ritschl  bear  too  close  a  resemblance,  sought 
to  involve  the  orthodox  position  in  hopeless  contradiction, 
by  maintaining  that  while,  on  the  one  hand,  the  end  for 
which  the  Saviour  died — viz.  the  salvation  of  men — de- 
manded that  He  should  rise  from  the  dead  unto  eternal 
life;  the  dogma  of  satisfaction,  on  the  other  hand,  demanded 
that  He  should  endure,  not  intensively  merely,  but  exten- 
sively, eternal  death.3  The  assumption  on  which  both 
virtually  proceed  is,  that  the  satisfaction  required  is  of  a 
pecuniary  character,  sin  being  conceived  of  as  a  debt  which 
can  be  cancelled  only  by  the  endurance  of  suffering  equal 
in  amount  to  that  due  to  sinners,  or  at  least  of  the  same 
quality  and    value.     It    must   be    acknowledged    that    the 

1  Studies  of  Christianity,  p.  86. 

*  Die  christliche  Lehre  von  der  Rechtfertigung  tmd  VersOhnung,  Li.  p.  416. 
3  De  Servatore*,  pars  tertia,  c.  iv. :  Haec  enim  satisfactio,  in  eo,  qui  nos  serva 
turns  est,  aeternam  mortem;  ista  autem  nos  servandi  ratio  aeternam  vitam  requirit. 


342  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

defenders  of  the  dogma  have  too  often  weakened  theif 
position  by  virtually  conceding  this  assumption  to  their 
opponents,  and  arguing  as  if  they  were  under  an  obligation 
to  make  out  not  only  a  moral  equivalence  in  respect  of 
value,  but  so  close  a  resemblance  in  the  nature  or  quality 
of  Christ's  sufferings  as  amounts  to  a  virtual  identity. 
Thus,  e.g.,  Van  Mastricht  labours  to  prove  that  Christ 
endured  death  in  all  senses;  not  only  death  temporal,  but 
death  spiritual  and  eternal; l  and  indeed  many  dogmatists, 
both  of  the  Lutheran  and  of  the  Reformed  confessions, 
laid  down  the  position  that  Christ  experienced  eternal 
death  intensive  though  not  extensive';  though  some,  as  e.g. 
Gerhard,  shrank  from  the  statement  in  this  bald  form, 
assigning  as  a  reason  why  the  Saviour  could  not  endure 
eternal  death,  that  He  was  personally  the  most  innocent 
and  most  beloved  Son  of  God.  Sometimes  the  matter  was 
put  in  this  way,  that  our  Lord  suffered  the  essence,  apart 
from  the  accidents,  of  eternal  death;  the  accidents  being 
remorse,  despair,  and  the  like.3  In  going  into  these  lines 
of  thought,  the  defenders  of  orthodoxy  went  off  the  right 
track;  for,  as  Dr.  Charles  Hodge  has  pointed  out,  there  is  a 
more  excellent  way — that,  viz.,  of  emphasizing  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  nature  and  the  design  of  Christ's 
sufferings.  It  is  a  mistake  to  suppose  that  the  doctrine  of 
satisfaction  requires  these  sufferings  to  be  the  same  even  in 
kind,  not  to  speak  of  degree,  as  the  sufferings  of  those 
whom  Christ  died  to  redeem.  "The  words  'penal'  and 
'penalty,'"  to  quote  the  well-weighed  language  of  the 
American  divine  just  referred  to,  "  do  not  designate  any 
particular  kind  or  degree  of  suffering,  but  any  kind  or  any 
degree  which  is  judicially  inflicted  in  satisfaction  of  justice. 
The  word  '  death,'  as  used  in  Scripture  to  designate  the 
wages  or  reward  of  sin,  includes  all  kinds  and  degrees  of 
suffering  inflicted  as  its  punishment.  By  the  words  '  penal ' 
and  '  penalty,'  therefore,  we  express  nothing  concerning 
the  nature  of  the  sufferings  endured,  but  only  the  design  of 
their  infliction."  '     The  same  views  are  expressed  with  equal 

'    Theoretico-praetica  Theologia,  lib.  v.  cap.  xii.  §§  vi.-ix. 

?  Vid.  Appendix,  Note  C. 

3  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii.  p    474. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  313 

point  and  clearness  by  another  American  theologian  of 
the  same  name,  Dr.  Archibald  Hodge:  "  He  (Christ)  did 
not  render  a  pecuniary  satisfaction,  and  therefore  did  not 
suffer  the  same  degree  nor  duration,  nor  in  all  respects  the 
same  kind  of  sufferings,  which  the  law  would  have  inflicted 
on  the  sinner  in  person.  .  .  .  The  substitution  of  a  divine 
for  a  human  victim  necessarily  involved  a  change  in  the 
quality,  though  none  whatever  in  the  legal  relations  of  the 
suffering."1  Again:  "  We  say  that  Christ  suffered  the  very 
penalty  of  the  law,  not  because  He  suffered  in  the  least  the 
same  kind,  much  less  the  same  degree,  of  suffering  as  was 
penally  due  those  for  whom  He  acted,  because  that  is  not 
at  all  necessary  to  the  idea  of  penalty."  2  When  this  dis- 
tinction between  the  design  and  the  nature  of  our  Lord's 
sufferings  is  grasped,  it  protects  us  from  the  temptation  to 
which  the  older  dogmaticians  partly  yielded,  of  reasoning 
deductively  from  the  supposed  requirements  of  a  theory  as 
to  what  these  sufferings  must  have  been,  and  leaves  us  free 
to  inquire  with  unbiassed  mind  what  the  Scriptures  repre- 
sent them  actually  to  have  been.  Instead  of  starting  with 
the  assumption,  that  the  thing  demanded  was  the  exact 
pound  of  flesh,  an  eye  for  an  eye,  a  tooth  for  a  tooth,  we 
are  content  to  learn  from  the  word  of  God  wherein  the 
satisfying  virtue  and  value  of  the  atonement  consisted; 
remembering  that  the  authoritative  estimate  of  the  virtue 
and  the  value  lies,  not  with  us,  but  with  the  unerring  judg- 
ment of  the  all-wise  God,  and  that  while  the  divine  estimate, 
as  ascertained  from  Scripture,  may  approve  itself  to  our 
minds  and  consciences  afterhand,  it  may  yet  in  some 
respects  be  different  from  what  we  should  have  conjectured 
beforehand,  or  from  the  a  priori  determinations  of  system- 
atic theology.  This  attitude,  it  will  be  observed,  is  not  to 
be  confounded  with  that  of  those  who,  with  Duns  Scotus, 
make  the  acceptance  of  Christ's  death  by  God,  as  a  satis- 
faction for  sin,  a  mere  affair  of  arbitrary  will  or  divine 
caprice.  The  theory  of  acceptilation,  as  it  is  called, 
recognises  no  standard  by  which  the  value  of  the  atonement 
can  be  determined,  and  represents  God  as  simply  choosing 

1   The  Atonement,  by  Rev.  Archibald  A.  Hodge,  D.D.,  p.  28. 
*  Ibid.  p.  36. 


344  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

to  ascribe  infinite  worth  to  that  which,  in  reality,  had 
only  a  limited  worth.  The  doctrine  now  contended  for, 
on  the  contrary,  is  that  the  atonement  rendered  by  Christ 
has  the  value  of  a  sufficient  satisfaction  for  the  sin  of  the 
world,  as  determined  by  intelligible  moral  considerations, 
as  opposed  to  mere  caprice;  only  it  makes  the  standard 
depend,  not  on  man's  judgment,  in  the  first  place,  but  on 
the  infallible  judgment  of  divine  wisdom. 

Looking,  then,  into  the  Scriptures  with  unbiassed  mind, 
in  order  to  find  out  the  elements  of  value  in  our  Lord's 
atoning  work,  as  estimated  by  the  wisdom  of  the  omniscient 
Spirit,  we  observe  that  emphasis  is  laid  on  at  least  four 
things:  first,  the  dignity  of  the  Sufferer;  second,  His  obe- 
dience to  His  Father's  will;  tJiird,  His  love  to  sinners;  and 
fourth,  His  sufferings  themselves.  The  divine  dignity  of 
the  Sufferer  is  pointed  at  as  an  important  factor  in  the  de- 
termination of  the  value  of  His  atoning  work  in  various 
places,  as  in  the  famous  passage  in  Paul's  Epistle  to  the 
Philippians,  so  often  alluded  to  in  these  Lectures,  where  it 
is  noted  that  He  who  was  obedient  unto  death  was  One 
who  had  been  in  the  form  of  God;  and  where  Christ  is 
spoken  of  as  offering  Himself  unto  God  by  the  eternal 
Spirit;1  and  yet  again,  where  the  heinous  nature  of  the 
sin  of  apostasy  is  indicated,  by  representing  the  apostate 
as  trampling  under  foot  the  Son  of  God,  and  counting  His 
blood,  the  blood  of  the  new  covenant,  a  common  thing. s 
These  passages  imply  that  the  divine  dignity  of  Christ 
gives  to  His  death  infinite  worth,  eternal  validity  as  a 
sacrifice,  inexpressible  sacredness.  Socinus  objected  to 
this  element  being  taking  into  account,  as  making  God  a 
respecter  of  persons.8  The  objection  is  utterly  frivolous; 
for  nothing  is  more  evident  to  common  sense,  than  that  in 
a  penal,  as  distinct  from  a  pecuniary  satisfaction,  the  person 
of  the  substitute  comes  into  consideration  as  affecting  the 
value  of  his  performance.  When  a  sum  of  money  is  due,  it 
has  to  be  paid  in  full,  no  matter  by  whom.  When  what  is 
required  is  reparation  of  an  injury  done  to  the  law  by  a 
moral  offence,  the  imprisonment  for  a  limited  period  of  a 

1   Ileb.  ix.  14.  2  Heb.  x.  29. 

3  De  Servatore,  pars  tertia,  cap.  iv. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  345 

prince  may  be  equivalent  to  the  incarceration  of  a  plebeian 
for  life.  The  other  argument  of  Socinus,  against  taking  the 
dignity  of  Christ  into  account — that  if  it  were  allowed,  it 
would  involve  a  charge  of  cruelty  against  God  in  subject- 
ing His  Son  to  more  suffering  than  there  was  need  for — is 
equally  frivolous.1  It  does  not  follow,  because  the  dignity 
is  to  be  taken  into  account,  that  therefore  the  suffering  may 
be  reduced  to  a  form,  a  mere  bowing  of  the  head,  so  to 
speak,  by  the  way  of  obeisance  to  the  law  which  governs 
the  world.  In  that  case  there  might  be  room  for  a  charge 
of  partiality.  To  exclude  such  a  possibility,  and  to  show 
that  the  law's  claims  were  being  earnestly  dealt  with,  it 
was  needful  that  the  sin-bearer,  though  divine,  should 
endure  all  that  it  was  possible  for  a  holy  Being  to  suffer  in 
the  way  of  penalty. 

That  the  holiness  or  obedience  of  Christ  enters  as  an  ele- 
ment into  the  estimate  of  value,  is  taught  by  clear  implica- 
tion in  those  words  of  the  Apostle  Peter,  where  he  reminds 
his  readers  that  they  have  been  redeemed,  not  with  cor- 
ruptible things,  such  as  silver  and  gold,  but  by  the  precious 
blood  of  Christ,  as  of  a  lamb  without  blemish  and  without 
spot?  The  same  truth  is  taught  in  the  Epistle  to  the 
Hebrews,  where  the  offering  by  Christ  of  His  body  in 
sacrifice  is  represented  as  the  climax  and  consummation  of 
His  obedience  to  God's  will.3  In  this  text  the  passion  of 
the  Saviour  is  conceived  of  as  having  its  value,  in  being  an 
act  of  obedience  which  formed  the  crown  of  a  life  of  obedi- 
ence. Herein,  according  to  the  writer  of  the  Epistle,  lay 
the  incomparable  merit  of  Christ's  sacrifice,  as  opposed  to 
the  legal  sacrifices,  wherein  the  blood-shedding  of  involun- 
tary brute-victims  had  only  a  ritual  and  no  ethical  signi- 
ficance. What  pleased  God  was  not  the  mere  fact  that  the 
blood  of  His  Son  was  shed.  To  imagine  such  a  thing  were 
to  fall  back  into  Jewish  ritualism,  and  to  put  the  offering 
on  Calvary  on  a  level  with  the  offering  of  bulls  and  goats. 
To  quote  the  words  of  Turretine,  "  the  satisfaction  is  not  to 
be  ascribed  merely  to  the  external  oblation  of  blood,  but 
specially   to    the    internal   act — that   is,    to   the   free   and 

1  De  Servatore,  pars  tertia,  cap.  iv. 

s  i  Pet.  i.  18-,  19.  3  Heb.  x.  4-10. 


346  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

most  stedfast  will  of  Christ — by  which  we  are  said  to  be 
sanctified."  ' 

Prominence  is  given  to  the  element  of  love  to  the  sinful, 
as  entering  into  the  divine  estimate  of  the  value  of  Christ's 
sacrifice,  by  the  Apostle  Paul  in  the  familiar  text:  "  Walk 
in  love,  as  Christ  also  hath  loved  us,  and  hath  given  Him- 
self for  us  an  offering  and  a  sacrifice  to  God  for  a  sweet- 
smelling  savour."  2  Here  the  beautiful  thought  is  suggested, 
that  the  love  to  the  sinful,  manifested  by  Christ  in  dying 
for  them,  made  His  death  well-pleasing  to  His  Father,  as- 
cending up  to  heaven  as  a  sweet  savour,  like  the  smoke  of 
sacrificial  victims  from  the  altar  of  burnt-offering.  This  is 
poetry;  but  it  is  also  sound  theology,  as  Aquinas  recog- 
nised when  he  spake  of  the  passion  of  the  Saviour  as  having 
value  in  God's  sight,  not  only  on  account  of  the  diginity  of 
the  Sufferer  and  the  severity  of  His  sufferings,  but  very 
specially  on  account  of  the  greatness  of  the  love  which 
moved  Him  to  suffer — propter  magnitudinem  charitatis .* 
And  it  is  not  unimportant  to  remark  here,  that  when 
we  regard  "the  magnitude  of  the  charity"  as  an  element 
of  value,  we  see  at  once  that  the  amount  of  suffering  could 
not  be  other  than  great;  for  if  we  should  be  ready  to  accept 
as  strictly  true  the  sentiment  on  which  the  doctrine  of  sat- 
isfactio  supcrabundans  is  based,  that  the  smallest  amount 
of  suffering  endured  by  such  an  august  Being,  even  the 
shedding  of  a  single  drop  of  His  blood,  would  have  sufficed 
to  satisfy  divine  justice,  it  is  certain  that  it  would  not  have 
sufficed  to  satisfy  the  Saviour's  own  love.  For  the  grati- 
fication of  its  own  yearning,  as  also  to  ensure  a  return  of 
the   greatest   possible  amount  of  grateful   love  for   those 

1  Institutio,  vol.  ii.  p.  394,  locus  decimus  quartus,  quaestio  xiii,  sec.  xii.:  Et 
satisfactio  non  externae  tantum  sanguinis  oblationi  adscribenda  est,  sed  praecipue 
actui  interno,  nimirum  spontaneae  ejus  et  constantissimae  voluntati,  qua  sanctificari 
dicimur. 

-  Eph.  v.  2. 

3  Summa,  pars  tertia,  q.  xlviii.  art.  ii. :  Christus  autem  ex  charitate  et  obedientia 
patiendo  majus  aliquid  Deo  exhibuit  quam  exi^eret  recompensatio  totius  offensae 
huraani  generis:  primo  quidem  propter  magnitudinem  charitatis  ex  qua  patiebatur. 
He  gives  as  his  r,econd  and  third  reasons:  (2)  Propter  dignitatem  vitae  suae,  quae 
erat  vita  Dei  et  hominis,  (3)  propter  generalitatem  passionis  et  magnitudinem 
doloris  assumpti.  On  these  grounds  Aquinas  based  his  doctrine  of  satisfactio 
supcrabundans . 


The  Humiliation  of  CJirist  in  its  Official  Aspect.  347 

/eceiving  the  benefit,  that  love  would  be  content  with 
nothing  short  of  enduring  all  that  it  was  barely  possible  foi 
a  sinless  Being  to  experience  in  the  way  of  suffering.1 

Yet  the  statements  of  Scripture,  in  speaking  of  Christ's 
sufferings,  are  characterized  by  a  dignified  sobriety.  No- 
where can  we  discover  the  slightest  tendency  to  exaggera- 
tion or  straining,  either  in  support  of  a  theory,  or  with  a 
view  to  rhetorical  effect.  Sometimes  the  mere  fact  that 
Christ  died  is  mentioned,  as  when  Paul,  summing  up  the 
gospel  he  had  preached  to  the  Corinthians,  specifies  as  one 
item,  "how  that  Christ  died  for  our  sins  according  to  the 
Scriptures;"  and  as  when,  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews, 
Jesus  is  spoken  of  as  crowned  with  glory  and  honour,  that 
He  by  the  grace  of  God  might  taste  death  for  every  man;' 
and  even  where  the  connection  of  thought  required  the  in- 
spired writers  to  exhibit  the  sufferings  of  the  Saviour  in  as 
intense  a  light  as  possible,  their  statements  are  not  so 
strong  as  one  accustomed  to  the  dogmatic  style  of  treat- 
ment might  expect  or  desiderate.  The  writer  of  the  Epis- 
tle to  the  Hebrews,  when  he  would  commend  Jesus  as  the 
pattern  of  patience,  says  of  Him  simply,  that  He  "endured 
the  cross,  despising  the  shame."  Paul,  when  he  would  ex- 
hibit the  humility  of  Christ  in  its  utmost  depth  of  self-abase- 
ment, indicates  the  limit  of  descent  by  the  phrase,  "  obedi- 
ent unto  death,  even  the  death  of  the  cross."  It  did  not 
occur  to  him  to  say,  "  even  death  spiritual,"  or  "  even  death 
eternal,"  or  "  even  the  death  of  the  damned."  It  may 
safely  be  concluded  that  such  extreme  phrases  are  not 
required  for  a  correct  statement  of  the  true  doctrine,  and 
that  it  will  suffice  to  say  in  general  terms  that  Christ 
suffered  in  body  and  soul  all  that  it  was  possible  for  a  holy 
being  to  suffer.  This  general  statement  leaves  the  question 
open,  whether  the  personal  holiness  of  Christ  did  not  fix 
a  limit  beyond  which  His  experience  of  suffering  could  not 
go,  even  as  it  set  bounds  to  His  experience  of  temptation. 
That  it  did  fix  such  a  limit  seems  beyond  question.  To 
speak  of  the  holy  One  of  God  as  enduring  spiritual  and 
eternal  death,  is  surely  a  gross  and  mischievous  abuse  of 
terms  !     Instead  of  following  the  example   of  Protestant 

1    Vid.  Appendix,  Note  D.  «  Heb.  ii.  9. 


34-8  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

scholastic  theologians  in  the  use  of  such  expressions,  we 
ought  rather  to  regard  such  use  as  an  instructive  illustra- 
tion of  the  danger  to  which  the  dogmatic  spirit  exposes  us 
of  wresting  Scripture,  and  manufacturing  facts  in  support 
of  a  preconceived  theory.  Happily  all  theologians  have  not 
yielded  to  the  temptation  in  connection  with  the  present 
topic,  some  having  handled  it  with  due  care,  caution,  and 
discrimination:  among  whom  the  American  divines  already 
named  deserve  honourable  mention,1  but  foremost  of  all, 
the  great  Transatlantic  theologian  of  last  century,  President 
Edwards,  whose  statement  on  the  question,  in  what  sense 
Christ  suffered  the  wrath  of  God,  deserves  and  will  repay 
the  most  attentive  study  of  all  who  desire  to  think  justly 
on  the  delicate  theme.2 

Summing  up,  then,  the  elements  of  value  in  our  Lord's 
atoning  death  as  inductively  ascertained  from  Scripture, 
we  get  this  formula,  expressed  in  mathematical  language, 
though  the  thing  to  be  estimated  is  a  moral  quantity  not 
admitting  of  mathematical  measurement:  The  value  of 
Christ's  sacrifice  was  equal  to  His  divine  dignity,  multiplied 
by  His  perfect  obedience,  multiplied  by  His  infinite  love, 
multiplied  by  suffering  in  body  and  soul  carried  to  the  utter- 
most limit  of  what  a  sinless  being  could  experience.  That 
is  to  say,  in  forming  an  estimate  of  the  fitness  of  that  sacri- 
fice to  satisfy  justice,  we  must  bear  in  mind  from  what  a 
height  the  Priest  who  offered  it  descended,  the  spirit  of  filial 
obedience  in  which  the  self-emptied  One  fulfilled  His 
ministry  after  He  had  assumed  the  form  of  a  servant,  the 
mind  of  lowly  love  to  the  sinful  which  brought  Him  down 
from  heaven,  and  made  Him  willing  to  descend  as  near 
hell  as  was  barely  possible;  and  finally,  the  curriculum  of 
suffering  through  which  He  passed  in  His  state  of  humili- 
ation, terminating  in  the  cross,  with  its  pain  and  shame, 
and    gloom    and    desolation.     All    these    things    the  First 

1  Vid.  Systematic  Theology,  vol.  ii.  p.  614;  and  The  Atonement,  cap.  v.  Mr. 
Dale  can  hardly  be  reckoned  among  this  class.  He  insists  on  taking  Christ's  com- 
plaint of  desertion  in  the  most  literal  sense,  and  represents  the  Redeemer  as  en- 
during that  loss  of  fellowship  with  the  divine  blessedness,  that  exile  from  the  joys 
of  God's  presence,  which  is  the  effect  of  the  Divine  wrath  in  the  case  ot  the  impen- 
itent.—  The  Atonement,  p.  61,  7th  edition. 

2  Vid.  Appendix,  Note  E. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  349 

Cause  and  Last  End  of  all  took  into  account;  and,  taking 
them  into  account,  He  was  well  pleased  with  His  Son's  per- 
formance. All  these  things  we,  too,  are  to  take  into  ac- 
count, in  endeavouring  to  say  Amen  to  the  divine  judgment 
concerning  the  sacrifice  offered  on  Calvary.  And  when  we 
have  duly  weighed  them  all,  we  find  the  saying  of  a  cordial 
Amen  no  hard  matter.  A  mediaeval  mystic  gave  utter- 
ance to  the  striking  thought,  that  in  order  to  the  fulness 
of  the  satisfaction  it  was  necessary  that  there  should  be  as 
great  humiliation  in  the  expiation  as  there  was  presump- 
tion in  the  transgression.1  That  requirement  is  met  by 
the  Scripture  doctrine,  for  it  was  One  in  the  form  of  God 
who  stooped  to  die.  The  other  elements  of  value  com-1 
mend  themselves  equally  to  our  minds.  When  we  learra 
that  Christ's  obedience  to  God  and  His  love  to  man  enter 
into  the  worth  of  His  sacrifice,  we  no  longer  rebel  against 
the  doctrine  as  one  of  immoral  tendency,  putting  salva- 
tion within  the  reach  of  selfish  men  who  simply  regard 
Christ  as  their  substituted  victim;  for  we  perceive  that  a 
spiritual  appreciation  of  the  ethical  value  of  the  atonement 
as  a  manifestation  of  the  Redeemer's  holiness  and  love  is 
of  the  essence  of  faith  in  Him  as  the  Saviour.  Then,  finally, 
the  doctrine  commends  itself  to  our  consciences  in  this, 
that  while  giving  due  prominence  to  these  moral  elements, 
it  does  not  trifle  with  the  penal  aspect  of  the  question,  but 
represents  the  Saviour  as  undergoing  suffering  limited  only 
by  His  inviolable  holiness,  limited  in  one  direction  only  to 
be  enhanced  in  others. 

How  different  the  moral  effect  of  the  scriptural  formula, 
as  above  ascertained,  from  that  produced  by  any  formula 
intended  to  make  out  an  atonement  sufficient  in  respect  of 
the  mathematical  quantum  of  suffering  as  the  all-important 
matter,  such  an  one,  e.g.,  as  that  proposed  by   Philippi  ! 

1  Richard  of  St.  Victor,  De  Verbo  Incarnato,  cap.  viii.  Richard  uses  the 
thought  as  an  argument  for  the  divinity  of  Christ.  His  words  are:  Ad  plenitu- 
dinem  autem  satisfactionis  oportuit  ut  tanta  esset  humiliatio  in  expiatione  quanta 
fuerat  praesumptio  in  praevaricatione.  Rationalis  autem  substantiae  J)eus  tenet 
summum,  homo  vera  imum.  Quando  ergo  homo  praesumpsit  contra  Deum,  facta 
est  elatio  de  imo  ad  summum.  Oportuit  ergo  ut  ad  expiationis  remedium  fieret 
humiliatio  de  summo  ad  imum,  sed  hoc  omnino  non  potuit  nisi  aliqua  in  Trinitate 
person  arum. 


2>5o  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

Christ,  according  to  this  modern  expounder  of  old  Luther- 
an orthodoxy,  suffered  eternal  death  as  fully  and  as  really 
as  the  damned,  the  only  difference  being  that  He,  as  God, 
was  able  to  suffer  intensively,  in  a  brief  space  of  time, 
what  the  weak  capacity  of  ordinary  human  nature  re- 
quires to  be  extended,  in  the  case  of  the  damned,  over  an 
unending  period  of  time.  In  this  way  the  eternal  death 
endured  by  Christ  intensively  was  strictly  equal  to  the 
eternal  death  endured  inextenso  by  any  one  sinner.  Then 
the  impersonality  of  Christ's  human  nature  is  brought  in  as 
a  factor,  by  which  the  eternal  death  of  Christ  is  made  equal 
to  the  sum  of  the  eternal  deaths,  actual  or  possible,  of  all 
mankind.  To  the  Socinian  objection,  that  even  if  it  be  ad- 
mitted that  Christ  could  endure  eternal  death,  yet  at  most 
He  endured  only  one  eternal  death,  while  ex  iiypothesi  there 
ware  as  many  eternal  deaths  to  endure  as  there  are  single 
human  individuals,  this  theologian  reckons  it  a  good  reply 
to  say,  that  Christ  did  not  endure  eternal  death  as  a  single 
common  man,  as  one  among  many,  but  as  the  God-man, 
"  who  weighs  more  than  all;"  the  point  intended  to  be  in- 
sisted on  by  the  phrase  within  inverted  commas  being,  not 
the  dignity  of  the  sufferer,  but  the  impersonality  of  His  hu- 
manity in  virtue  of  which  He  is  Man,  not  an  individual 
man:  manhood  multiplied  by  Godhead  was  to  make  His 
humanity,  not  ethically,  but  metaphysically,  equal  to  the 
sum  of  individuals  bearing  human  nature.  Thus  the  re- 
sulting formula  is,  divine  capacity  of  suffering  multiplied  by 
the  impersonality,  multiplied  by  the  intensively  endured 
eternal  death,  equals  the  sum  of  the  eternal  deaths  endur- 
able in  extenso  of  all  the  damned,  and  of  all  those  liable  to 
damnation.1  A  revolting  equation,  at  once  metaphysically 
inconceivable  and  morally  offensive,  degrading  the  suffer- 
ings of  the  Redeemer  into  a  mere  literal  quid  pro  quo,  and 
exhibiting  His  atoning  death  in  the  aspect  least  fitted  to 
show  forth  the  divine  glory,  to  satisfy  human  consciences, 
or  to  become  a  moral  power  over  human  hearts.  They 
are  not  the  friends  of  a  great  truth,  who  present  it  in  so  re- 
pulsive a  form.  Even  in  the  scholastic  period  of  Protes- 
tant orthodoxy,  Cotta,  the  learned  editor  of  Gerhard's  Loci, 
1  Kirchliche  Glaubenslehre,  Theil  iv.  2:e  Ilalfie.  \>    j2. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  2,5 1 

while  claiming  for  himself  the  character  of  a  sound  Luther- 
an, yet  found  it  necessary  to  explain  that  it  must  be  taken 
with  a  grain  of  salt  when  theologians  teach  that  Christ 
suffered  in  His  soul  infernal  pains;  and  that  the  statement 
must  be  understood  to  refer,  not  to  the  very  pains  which  the 
damned  experience,  but  rather  to  the  gravity  of  His  pains, 
which  can  be  compared  with  that  of  infernal  torments.1 
Modern  Lutherans  of  the  Philippi  type  seem  bent  on  serving 
up  to  their  contemporaries  a  rechauffe"  of  antiquated  opin- 
ions, without  the  grain  of  salt  deemed  by  Cotta  necessary 
to  make  them  palatable;  with  what  result  it  is  not  diffi- 
cult to  foresee. 

When  the  Redeemer  breathed  out  His  soul  on  the  cross, 
His  humiliation  had  reached  its  climax,  if  it  did  not  then 
take  end.  The  interval  between  death  and  the  resurrection 
the  Reformed  confessions  reckon  to  the  state  of  exinanition; 
but  they  view  it  simply  as  a  natural  sequel  to  the  death, 
and  speak  of  it  soberly  as  consisting  in  Christ's  continuing 
under  the  power  of  death  for  a  time.  This  sobriety  has  not 
been  imitated  by  all  theologians.  What  took  place  during 
the  time  when  the  Saviour's  body  rested  in  the  tomb,  has 
been  the  subject  of  an  immense  amount  of  curious  and  un- 
profitable speculation,  based  on  a  few  obscure  texts  of 
Scripture.  Into  the  ghostly  questions  relating  to  the  tri- 
duum  I  have  no  space  to  enter,  and,  I  must  in  honesty  add, 
small  inclination.  To  this  dark  region  may  be  applied  the 
word  of  prophecy  concerning  Babylon  in  ruins,  "  Owls  shall 
dwell  there."  Instead,  therefore,  of  flitting  about  like  a 
theological  night-bird  in  the  territory  of  the  dead,  where 
nothing  can  be  distinctly  seen  or  known,  I  shall  conclude 
this  lecture  with  a  brief  summary  of  the  theories  concern- 
ing Christ's  redeeming  work,  to  which,  in  its  course,  I  have 
had  occasion  to  allude.  One  advantage  which  has  come 
to  us  unsought  from  the  study  of  that  work  from  our  chosen 

1  Cotta's  words  are:  Atque  ex  his,  quae  modo  diximur,  satis  patet.  cum  grano 
salis  accipiendum  esse  quando  theologi  protestantes  docent  Christum  inanima  sua 
dolores  infernales  passum  esse.  Neque  enim  hoc  de  iis  ipsis  doloribus  quos  dam- 
nati  experiuntur,  sed  potius  de  gravitate  dolorum,  qui  cum  infernalibus  comparari 
possunt,  intelligendum  est.  (Vid.  Dissertatio  secunda.  De  stations  et  officio 
Chris ti  mediatorio.) 


3^2  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

point  of  view,  is  the  suggestion  of  a  method  of  classifying 
theories  of  atonement  or  redemption.  The  value  of  a  good 
method  of  classification  in  all  departments  of  knowledge  is 
universally  acknowledged.  When  classification  is  wholly 
neglected,  science  degenerates  into  mere  fact-knowledge, 
devoid  of  intellectual  interest;  when  the  classification  is 
defective,  facts  are  wrongly  assorted,  resemblances  being 
overlooked,  and  differences  unduly  magnified,  or  vice  versd. 
These  evils  are  not  without  exemplification  in  the  present 
department  of  knowledge.  The  recent  literature  on  the 
doctrine  of  atonement  presents  reviews  of  theories  more  or 
less  elaborate,  in  many  respects  valuable,  yet  less  instruc- 
tive than  they  might  have  been,  because  the  theories  criti- 
cised are  simply  enumerated  in  an  almost  casual  order,  and 
opinions  of  certain  writers  are  noticed  as  distinct  theories, 
which  are  in  reality  simple  varieties  of  one  and  the  same 
theory * 

The  scheme  of  classification  put  into  our  hands  as  the 
spontaneous  result  of  the  inquiries  in  which  we  have  been 
engaged  in  this  lecture  is  as  follows: — 

1.  Christ,  we  have  seen,  suffered  as  a  prophet  for  right- 
eousness' sake,  and  there  is  a  theory  which  regards  His 
sufferings  solely  from  this  point  of  view.  On  this  theory, 
our  Lord's  sufferings,  including  His  death,  were  simply  in- 
cidental to  His  prophetic  office,  as  exercised  in  this  evil 
world;  and  their  redemptive  power  lies  in  this,  that  they 
exhibit  Christ  as  a  fellow-combatant  for  truth  and  right, 
and  show  us  that  fellowship  with  God  is  independent  of 
outward  happiness,  and  so  prevent  our  peace  of  mind  from 
being  disturbed  by  the  mistaken  notion  that  all  suffering  is 
on  account  of  sin.  This  is  substantially  the  view  held  in 
common  by  Socinus,  Robertson,  and  Ritschl.  It  may  be 
distinguished  as  the  prophetic  theory. 

2.  Christ,  we  have  seen,  as  a  priest  acting  for  men  before 
God,  needed  to  have  an  experience  fitted  to  develop  and 
reveal  sympathy,  and  so  to  gain  the  confidence  of  those 
whom  He  represents.  There  is  a  theory  which  looks  on 
the  sympathy  of  Christ  manifested  in  a  suffering,  sorrow- 

1  This  remark  applies,  to  a  certain  extent,  to  the  work  of  Professor  Crawfoid. 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  353 

ful  experience,  as  the  whole  of  His  performance,  and  the 
source  of  all  His  redeeming  power.  In  this  theory  suffering 
is  not  an  incident,  but  a  chief  end  of  the  Incarnation.  Christ 
not  only  suffered  inevitably  by  coming  into  contact  with 
the  evil  of  the  world,  but  came  into  the  world  for  the  ex- 
press purpose  of  revealing  divine  love  through  self-sacrifice 
carried  to  its  utmost  limit,  in  order  to  gain  moral  influence 
over  men  for  their  spiritual  good.  This  view  was  first 
formally  propounded  by  Abelard,  and  its  most  distinguished 
modern  expounder  is  Bushnell.  It  may  be  named  the 
sympathetic  theory. 

3.  Christ,  we  have  seen,  as  the  priestly  representative 
of  men  before  God,  performs  acts  which  have  validity  for 
the  whole  community:  the  one  sanctifying  the  whole.  We 
have  seen  also  that,  under  a  certain  aspect,  Christ's  priestly 
action  may  legitimately  be  regarded  as  including  Himself. 
Now  there  is  a  theory  which  holds  that  Christ's  priestly 
activity  in  its  whole  compass,  and  under  all  its  aspects,  is 
inclusive  of  Himself;  that  He  does  nothing  for  us  which 
He  does  not  do  for  Himself;  that  whatever  He  does  for  us, 
He  does  by  first  doing  it  for  Himself;  that  He  sanctifies  the 
whole  lump  of  humanity  by  sanctifying  Himself  as  the 
first-fruits.  On  this  theory,  Christ's  death  is  simply  the 
crown  of  a  life  of  obedience,  in  which  He  maintained  an 
absolutely  unbroken  fellowship  with  His  Father,  and  pre- 
sented the  ideal  which  all  believers  must  strive  to  have 
realized  in  themselves.  This  view  many  of  the  Fathers 
entertained,  without  intending  it  as  an  exhaustive  account 
of  Christ's  work;  and  in  modern  times  it  has  been  advocated 
as  the  true  theory  of  redemption  under  various  forms,  by 
Schleiermacher,  Irving,  and  Maurice.  It  may  be  called  the 
theory  of  redemption  by  sample. 

4.  Christ,  we  have  seen,  was  not  only  a  priest,  but  a 
sacrificial  victim;  in  the  latter  capacity  acting  not  as  a 
representative,  but  a  substitute,  bearing  the  world's  sin 
imputed  to  Him,  that  sinners  might  be  made  the  righteous- 
ness of  God  in  Him.  In  connection  with  this  branch  of  our 
subject  we  found  it  convenient  to  distinguish  a  twofold 
imputation — a  subjective  imputation  of  sin  to  Christ  by  Him- 
self, and  an  objective  imputation  of  sin  to  Him  by  the  First 


3^4  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

Cause  and  Last  End  of  all.  The  former  sort  of  imputation 
we  found  recognised  by  parties  who  deny  the  latter;  their 
theory  being,  that  Christ  imputed  to  Himself,  as  a  partaker 
of  humanity,  the  world's  sin,  to  the  extent  of  making  a 
sorrowful  confession  of  it,  which  was  accepted  by  God  as  a 
confession  by  humanity,  and  therefore  as  a  ground  of  for- 
giveness. This  theory  assumes  that  it  is  not  necessary,  in 
order  to  pardon,  that  the  penalty  of  sin  be  endured,  ade- 
quate confession  of  sin  being  an  alternative  method  of  satis- 
fying the  claims  of  divine  holiness.  Its  principal,  we  may 
almost  say  its  sole,  advocate  is  M'Leod  Campbell.  It  may 
be  distinguished  as  the  theory  of  redemption  by  Christ's 
self-imputation  of  sin,  or,  by  perfect  confession  of  sin. 

5.  The  fifth  and  last  theory  is  the  Catholic  one  of  redemp- 
tion by  substitute,  which,  in  addition  to  the  subjective  im- 
putation of  sin  to  Himself  by  Christ,  and  to  the  imputation 
of  sin  to  Him  by  believers  in  their  prayers  and  praises,  both 
admitted  by  those  who  take  exception  to  the  received 
doctrine,1  teaches,  over  and  above,  a  corresponding  objective 
imputation  of  sin  to  the  Redeemer  by  the  Supreme  Ruler 
of  the  world,  the  ground  at  once  of  Christ's  action  in  im- 
puting human  sin  to  Himself,  of  our  action  in  imputing  our 
sins  to  Him,  and  of  God's  action  in  imputing  righteousness 
to  us.  This  theory,  like  the  rest,  has  assumed  various 
forms  in  the  hands  of  its  advocates;  some  exaggerating 
the  penalty  endured  by  Christ  as  the  sin-bearer,  with  a 
view  to  mathematical  identity,  supposed  to  be  required 
by  the  principle  on  which  the  theory  is  based;  others  atten- 
uating the  penalty  to  a  mere  symbol  or  form;  while  others, 
again,  have  striven  to  steer  a  medium  course  between  two 
extremes,  laying  emphasis  not  on  the  quantity  or  the  quality 
of  the  Saviour's  sufferings,  but  on  their  design;  yet  pointing 
out,  in  the  interest  both  of  divine  justice  and  of  divine  love, 
that  these  sufferings  went  to  the  utmost  limit  of  what  it 
was  possible  for  a  holy  being  to  endure. 

While  advocating  the  last-named  theory,  still  entitled 
by  comparison  to  be  called  the  Catholic,  I  have  not  found 
it  necessary  to  repudiate  as  utterly  false  all  those  preced- 
ing.    I  have  been  able  to  recognise  each  in  succession  as  a 

1  See  Bushnell,  The  Vicarious  Sacrifice,  p.  450  to  the  end. 


1 


lie  Humiliation  of  Christ  in  its  Official  Aspect.  355 


fragment  of  the  truth,  one  aspect  of  the  many-sided  wis- 
dom of  God  revealed  in  the  earthly  ministry  of  His  eternal 
Son.  In  this  fact  I  find  great  comfort,  with  reference  both 
to  my  own  theological  position  on  this  great  theme,  and 
to  that  of  many  who  occupy  a  different  position.  For,  on 
the  one  hand,  it  is  a  presumption  in  favour  of  the  Catholic 
doctrine,  that  it  does  not  require  to  negative  rival  theories, 
except  in  so  far  as  they  are  exclusive  and  antagonistic; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  one  may  hope  that  theories  which 
have  been  a  partial  truth  will  bless  their  advocates  by  the 
truth  that  is  in  them,  connecting  them  in  some  way  with 
Him  who  is  the  fountain  of  life,  and  initiating  a  process  of 
spiritual  development  which  will  carry  thern  on  to  higher 
things.  It  is  not  impossible,  it  is  not  even  uncommon,  to 
grow  to  Catholic  orthodoxy  from  the  meagrest,  even  from 
Socinian,  beginnings.  Such  was  the  way  in  which  the 
apostles  themselves,  the  first  inspired  authoritative  teachers 
of  the  faith,  attained  to  the  elevated  view-point  from  which 
they  surveyed  Christ's  work  on  earth,  when  they  had  reached 
the  position  in  the  Church  which  their  Lord  designed  them 
to  occupy.  Their  first  lesson  in  the  doctrine  of  the  cross 
did  not  rise  above  the  watchword  of  the  Socinian  theory: 
"  the  righteous  One  suffering  for  righteousness'  sake,  and 
setting  therein  an  example  to  all  His  disciples;"  and  not 
till  long  after,  did  they  attain  insight  into  the  meaning  of 
the  baptismal  name  given  by  the  Baptist  to  Jesus:  "The 
Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world."  Let 
this  fact  ever  be  borne  in  mind  by  all  to  whom  that  name  is 
fraught  with  peace  and  provocative  of  ardent  love,  and  it 
will  help  them  to  maintain  an  attitude  of  patience,  hope, 
and  charity  towards  many  who  reject  with  determined  un- 
belief, yea,  with  bitter  scorn,  truths  dear  to  their  own 
hearts. 


APPENDIX. 


LECTURE  I. 

Note  A.— Page  15. 

It  is  not  my  intention  to  attempt  a  complete  history  «rff 
the  interpretation  of  this  famous  passage,  which  has  occu- 
pied the  thoughts  of  commentators  and  theologians  in  all 
ages.  Those  who  desire  full  information  on  the  history  o-f 
opinion  may  consult,  besides  the  leading  commentaries,. 
Tholuck's  Disputatio  Christologica  de  loco  Pauli  Ep.  ad  Phil. 
c.  ii.  6-9,  or  Ernesti's  monograph  on  the  same  passage  in 
the  Theologische  Studienund Kritiken  (1848,  viertes  Heft),  im 
which  the  various  methods  of  interpreting  the  passage  are 
carefully  classified,  and  an  attempt  made  to  explain  it  by 
the  hypothesis  of  an  allusion  being  intended  by  the  apostle 
to  the  second  and  third  chapters  of  Genesis.  What  I  pro- 
pose here  is  simply  to  jot  down  a  few  notes  on  particular 
expressions,  and  first  on  the  phrase,  hv  uop<p$  Qeov. 

What  is  signified  by  nopcprj  &eov  ?  The  Fathers,  as  is 
stated  in  the  text,  generally  took  uop<pi}  as  equivalent  to 
q>v6iz,  their  anxiety  being  to  find  in  the  passage  an  unequiv- 
ocal testimony  to  the  divinity  of  Christ.  The  only  excep- 
tion is  Hilary,  who  vacillates  on  the  point,  as  also  on  the 
question  closely  bound  up  therewith:  whether  the  forma 
Dei  was  renounced  or  retained  in  the  state  of  humiliation. 
In  some  places  Hilary  follows  the  ordinary  patristic  view, 
and  in  others  he  departs  from  it.  A  full  list  of  the  relative 
passages,  and  an  instructive  discussion  of  their  import,  will 
be  found  in  Thomasius,  Christi  Person  and  Werk,  ii.  pp.  174- 
189.  Thomasius  thus  states  the  fact  as  to  Hilary's  opinion: 
"  Usually  he  distinguishes  strictly  between  forma  servi  and 
forma  Dei,  as  in  ix.  14  {De  Trimtate),  and  also  between 


360  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

human  nature  and  forma  servi.  Forma  Dei  is  for  him  the 
glory-form  of  God,  the  form  of  appearance  which  belongs 
to  the  Son,  in  virtue  of  His  likeness  in  essence  to  the 
Father.  Forma  et  vultus  et  facies  et  imago  non  differunt, 
De  Trin.  viii.  44,  45.  It  is  the  stamp  of  the  characteristic 
expression  and  impression  (Aus-  und  Abdruck)  of  the  God- 
head of  the  Father:  quod  signatum  in  Dei  forma  est,  hoc  ne- 
cesse  est  totum  in  se  coimaginatum  habere  quod  Dei  est;  on 
the  other  hand,  forma  servi  is  the  habitus  Jiumanus,  forma 
Ziomiuis,  liumilitas;  not,  however,  so  as  if  the  appearing 
form  were  abstracted  from  the  essence,  but  both  go  to- 
gether in  Hilary's  view:  the  human  nature  in  its  earthly 
limited  definiteness,  the  divine  nature  in  the  form  of  mani- 
festation essential  to  it.  Therefore  speaks  he  thus  at  one 
time:  The  evacnatio  forma  Dei  is  not  evacaatio  naturae,  sub- 
stantiae;  at  another  time:  ut  vero  assumpsisse  formam  servi 
nihil  aliud  est,  quam  hominem  natum  esse,  ita  in  forma  Dei 
esse  non  aliud  est,  quam  Deum  esse;  therefore  he  speaks 
now  of  a  real  renunciation  of  the  forma  Dei  in  the  incarna- 
tion, the  contrast  to  which  is  interitus  naturae;  and  anon  de- 
clares that  the  forma  Dei  preserved  itself,  to  a  certain 
extent,  in  the  evacuatio,  in  which  case  the  forma  is  identi- 
fied with  the  essence"  (p.  174).  Among  the  principal 
passages  bearing  on  Hilary's  opinions  on  the  two  con- 
nected questions  as  to  the  meaning  of  forma  Dei,  and 
the  retention  or  renunciation  of  the  forma  Dei  in  the  state 
of  exinanition,  are  the  following.  I  place  first  those  which 
imply  a  distinction  between  form  and  nature,  and  an  ex- 
change of  divine  form  for  human  form  in  the  state  of 
humiliation.  De  Trinitate,  ix.  51:  Dei  forma  jam  non  erat, 
quia  per  ejus  exinanitionem  servi  erat  forma  suscepta. 
Neque  enim  defecerat  natura,  ne  esset;  sed  in  se  humilita- 
tem  terrenae  nativitatis  manens  sibi  Dei  natura  susceperat, 
generis  sui  potestatem  in  habitu  assumptae  humilitatis  ex- 
ercens.  ix.  38:  Exinaniens  se  igitur  ex  Dei  forma,  servi 
formam  natus  susceperat,  sed  hanc  carnis  assumptionem 
ea,  cum  qua.  sibi  naturalis  unitas  erat,  Patris  natura,  non 
senserat.  viii.  45:  Exinanivit  se  ex  Dei  forma,  id  est  ex  eo 
quod  aequalis  Deo  erat.  On  the  other  side,  inclining  to 
the  ordinary  patristic  view,  are  the  following  passages: — 


Appendix. — Lecture  I. — Note  A.  301 

xi.  48;  In  forma  Dei  manens  formam  servi  assumpsit,  non 
demutatus,  sed  se  ipsum  exinaniens,  et  intra  se  latens.  et 
intra  suam  ipse  vacuefactus  potestatem.  Form  is  here 
taken  as  equal  to  nature,  therefore  it  remains  in  the  servile 
state,  xii.  6:  Christus  enim  in  forma  Dei  manens  formam 
servi  accepit.  .  .  .  Esse  autem  in  forma  Dei  non  alia  intel- 
ligentia  est,  quam  in  Dei  manere  uatura.  Passing  on  to 
modern  times,  we  find  that  the  tendency  among  all  interpre- 
ters, and  specially  those  who  regard  the  kenosis  as  con- 
sisting in  an  exchange  of  the  form  of  God  for  the  form  of  a 
servant,  is  to  identify  uop<p?j  Qeov  with  the  S6c,a  to  which 
Jesus  alluded  in  His  intercessory  prayer  (John  xvii.  5). 
Thus  Thomasius:  "That  i*-op<pr)  is  equivalent  neither  to 
ov6ia,  nor  to  (pvdis,  nor  to  status,  but  signifies  its  forma, 
the  appearance  with  which  anything  shows  itself,  may 
be  regarded  as  the  common  result  of  modern  exegesis 
Mopcpr)  Qeov  is  therefore,  as  Meyer  expresses  it,  the  condi- 
tion-form corresponding  to  the  essence  and  exhibiting  the 
condition  (die  Zustandsform,  dem  Wesen  entsprechend  und 
den  Zustand  darstellend),  or,  more  strictly,  the  glory-form 
answering  to  the  essence  of  God  (die  dem  Wesen  Gottes 
entsprechende  Herrlichkeitsgestalt),  or,  as  Wiesinger  puts 
it,  the  glory  of  the  divine  form  of  existence,  distinguished 
from  the  5o|a  (John  xvii.  5),  only  thereby,  that  here  the 
appearance  of  this  glory  before  the  world  is  conceived  as  in- 
cluded, as  is  evident  from  the  contrast  of  nopcpr/  SovXov"  (vol. 
ii.  p.  150).  Ebrard,  however  dissents  from  this  view,  and 
contends  that  Mopcprf  and  86'ia  are  not  to  be  identified.  A6\a, 
he  says,  "  is  not=uopq>TJ  Qeov,  (a)  in  respect  of  the  sense  of 
the  words.  A6\a  always  denotes  an  outward  glory  an- 
swering to  the  inward  essence,  a  concrete,  never  the  im- 
mediate, existence-form  of  the  essence  itself.  Form  and 
HerrlicJikeit  are  very  different  even  in  German.  [Ii]  If  it  is 
said  that  86£a  is  not  indeed  equivalent  to  uop<p^,  but  is  equiv- 
alent to  uopcprj  Qeov;  it  signifies,  not  the  abstract  idea  of  ex- 
istence-form, but  that  definite  existence-form  which  the 
Son  had  before  the  Incarnation,  it  must  be  said  in  reply, 
that  John  xvii.  22  is  against  this  view,  where  Christ  denotes 
His  inner  glory  which  He  had  not  laid  aside  in  the  Incar- 
nation, and  had  given  to  the  disciples  by  the  term  Sola,  and 


362  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

distinguishes  it  from  the  Sofa  which  He  had  laid  aside,  and  is 
about  to  get   back.     A6%<x.  is  therefore  not  =/iop<pq  0eou,  is 
not  the  name  for  this  one  definite  existence-form,  but  is 
the  name  for  every  kind  of  glory.     (V)  Paul   (Rom.  viii.  17; 
Phil.  ii.  9)  denotes  by  the  term  86£a  the  outer  glory  which 
forms  the  adequate  appearance  of  an  inner  essence,  i.e.  the 
state  of  the  glorification  or  transfiguration  of  the  blessed  at 
the  resurrection,  both  of  Christ  and  of  believers.     In  John 
xvii.   5,  24,   doqa   similarly  denotes  the  outer  glory  which 
Christ  possessed  before  the  Incarnation,  and  should  again 
receive  after  His  resurrection,  the  worship  of  angels,  recog- 
nition as  Head  and  Lord  of  the  world.     But  in  ver.  22  Sola 
is  used  to  denote  the  inner  glory  which  Christ  never  re- 
nounced.    Nowhere  is  <5o'|a  =  existence-form."     In  accord- 
ance with  this  view,  Erbrard  assigns  to  ju°P<py  &£ov,  as  dis- 
tinct from  S6k<x,  the  specific  meaning:  divine,  that  is,  eternal 
form  of  existence.     This  Christ  parted  with  at  the  Incarna- 
tion, not  only  for  a  time,  but  forever.     He  exchanged  once 
for  all  the  eternal   mode  of  existence  for  the  time-form. 
He  became  and  continues  for  ever  man.     See  Christliche 
Dogmatik,  vol.  ii.  32-37.     The  view  of  Liebner  is  somewhat 
similar.     He  uses  the  expression  juopcpt}  SovAov  as  a  clue  to 
the   meaning  of  the  other  contrasted  phrase  i-iopcpr)  QeoD: 
"'  The  uopcprj  SovXov  signifies  the  human  existence-form  as  a 
condition  of  dependence,  the  existence-form  of  the  creature- 
ly  ethico-religious  personality.     What,  then,  is  the  neces- 
Jary  contrast  which  is  expressed  through  the  phrase  uopcprj 
&eov?     Nothing  else  than  the   existence-form  of  absolute 
independence,  freedom,  absolute  personality."     That  is,  in 
the  uopcprj  &eov  the  Son  of  God  was  not  a  servant  of  God, 
which  He  became  when  He  assumed  human  nature,  but  an 
equal  of  God   (vid.    Christologie,    p.   327).     According  to 
Nitzsch,  the  term  uopcprj  is  used  in  reference  to  God,  mainly 
because  it  is  used  in  the  next  clause  in  reference  to  human- 
ity, to  complete  the  parallelism  of  thought  and  language: 
"The  direct  occasion  to  use  the  word  uopcprj  lay  more  on 
the  human  than  on  the  divine  side,  as  it  belongs  to  the 
essence   of  man   to   be    an    incorporated,    sense-endowed, 
apparent,  shaped,  visible  personality.     But  the  human  form 
has  the  God  form  for  its   natural   antithesis."     "  The  im- 


Appendix. — Lecture  I. — Note  A.  36 


o 


portant  point,"  the  author  adds,  "is  this:  Christ,  who  in 
the  ground  of  His  being  is  the  Lord  of  glory,  the  Son  of 
God,  whose  vocation  it  is  to  glorify  the  Father,  and  whom 
the  Father  purposes  to  glorify,  in  obedience  to  the  Father, 
and  in  love  to  the  Father,  and  to  union  with  the  human 
race,  and  to  the  glorifying  of  humanity  and  of  the  world  along 
with  Himself,  emptied  Himself  of  the  brightness  (Klarheif) 
which  He  had  in  Himself  in  entering  into  a  human  state  of 
servitude  "  {System  der  Christlichen  Lehre,  p.  260).  In  affin- 
ity with  Nitzsch's  opinion  stands  that  of  Ernesti.  "  If,"  he 
remarks,  "  we  are  to  understand  by  uopcp?}  ©sov  an  outer 
appearance-form,  shape,  then  arise  these  unanswerable 
questions:  What  is  the  specific  form  of  God  in  which  Christ 
found  Himself  in  His  pre-existence  ?  and,  What  is  the 
specific  form  of  a  servant  ?  Is  it  that  of  men  ?  Angels 
also  can  be  God's  servants.  We  can  therefore,  in  the  de- 
scription of  Christ  by  the  phrase  kv  juopptf  &sov  vnapx^y, 
recognise  only  a  pictorial  expression  (Phantasieausdruck) 
of  the  truth,  that  in  His  pre-existence  He  was  more  than  a 
servant  of  God,  as  men  are,  v ids  tov  Qsov  in  an  eminent 
sense,  the  ds6rspoi  6e6s  of  Philo,  a  pure  light-reflection  of 
God,  atHMy  tov  &eov,  and  must  give  up  the  idea  of  making 
this  pictorial  expression  conceptually  clear,  as  also  in  Gen. 
iii.  2  the  ysyovs  gJ;  eh  v/.kSy  cannot  be  made  conceptually 
clear.  In  short,  Christ,  being  originally  more  than  man 
made  in  God's  image,  might  with  more  plausibility  than  Adam 
have  entertained  the  thought  of  acting  automatically;  but 
He  denied  Himself,  renounced  this  moreness  (Mehrseyns), 
would  only  be  what  man  ought  to  be,  a  servant  of  God. 
Therefore  He  remained  in  conscious  dependence  on  God, 
and  made  Himself  like  men.  The  first  is  the  ovh  dpnayfxov 
t)yr)6aro  to  eivai  16a  Qe(S;  the  second,  the  savTov  kxevoo6e  " 
{Studien  und  Kritiken,  1848,  pp.  912,  913).  The  parallelism 
between  Christ's  behaviour  and  Adam's,  here  hinted  at  and 
carried  out  in  all  particulars  by  Ernesti  (Adam  would  be 
God,  Christ  renounces  His  Godlikeness;  Adam  suffered 
death  as  a  doom,  Jesus  voluntarily;  Adam  incurred  the 
divine  curse,  Jesus  won  the  divine  approval  and  a  great  re- 
ward, etc.),  has  not  been  approved  by  expositors,  and 
seems  far-fetched.     His  conception  also  of  Christ's  pre-ex- 


364  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

istent  state  comes  short  of  the  standard  of  orthodoxy.    But 
his  view  as  to  the  meaning  of  ixopcpr^,  or  rather  as  to  the  impos- 
sibility of  fixing  its  meaning  in  precise  theological  thought, 
deserves  serious  consideration.     If  any  theological  fixation 
of  its   meaning  be  possible,  it  must  be  looked  for  in  the 
direction  pointed  out  by  Ebrard  and  Liebner;  for,  as  Ebrard 
has  shown,  the  term  86\<x  hardly  suffices  to  give  the  neces- 
sary definiteness.    A  similar  remark  may  be  made  with  ref- 
erence to  the  expression  n\ov6ios  c£y  in  2  Cor.  viii.  9.     The 
word  it\ov6io<  suggests  much,  but  specifies  nothing;  it  points 
to  a  state  very  diverse  from  the  impoverished  condition  of 
the  Lord  Jesus  in  His  state  of  humiliation;  but  it  gives  us 
no  inventory  of  the  riches  renounced,  no  indication  of  their 
nature.     The  term  stimulates  our  imagination  rather  than 
informs  our  minds.    We  may  put  much  meaning  into  it,  ac- 
cording to  our  theological  conception  of  what  the  Incarnation 
involved,  but  we  cannot  take  much  theology  out  of  it  by  a 
reliable  and  legitimate  process  of  exegesis.    We  may  make 
the  riches  renounced,  metaphysical,  ethical,  or  eudamon- 
istic,  or  all  three  together.     The  best  clue  to  the  nature  of 
the  riches   renounced,    the    glory  foregone,  the  form  laid 
aside,  is  the  ^opq»)  dovXov,  to  which  the  j-ioptprf  0sov  stands 
opposed.     We  have  to  consider  what  was  involved  in  this 
servile  state;  and  if  we  find  that  limitation  of  divine  attri- 
butes, such  as  knowledge,  exposure  to  temptation,  liability 
to  the  curse  pronounced  on  man  for  sin,  hardships  supply- 
ing severe  tests  of  obedience,  were  all  involved  in  it,  and 
necessary   to   its    completeness    and    thoroughness, — then 
we  may  infer  that  the  uopcpt}  Osov  forms  a  contrast  to  the 
nop<pi]  SovXov  in  all  these  respects:  in  respect  to  divine  attri- 
butes (metaphysical),  in  respect  to  divine  exemption  from 
moral  trial,  and  in  respect  to  divine  felicity;  the  kenosis, 
of  course,  extending  to  all,  in  whatever  sense  the  kenosis 
is  to  be  taken,  whether  as  absolute  or  as  relative. 
I     2.  Having  discussed  at  length  the  expression  uopyri  Osov, 
it  will  not  be  necessary  to  enter  into  much  additional  de- 
tail   on    the  correlate  expression    nopcpn  SovXov,  having  al- 
ready anticipated  much  that  relates  thereto.     In  patristic 
literature  ^opq>t}  SovXov  signifies  human  nature,  as  nop<pn  Gsou 
signifies  divine  nature.     Modern  interpreters,  on  the  other 


Appendix. — Lecture  I. — Note  A.  365 

hand,  are  generally  agreed  that  the  form  of  a  servant 
is  not  to  be  immediately  identified  with  human  nature, 
but  points  to  some  attribute  of  human  nature,  either  acci- 
dental or  essential.  Ebrard  understands  by  the  phrase, 
not  human  nature  in  its  ideal  integrity,  but  human  nature 
as  it  stands  under  the  consequences  of  sin.  According  to 
this  view,  the  servant-form  is  something  accidental.  Lieb- 
ner  gives  to  the  phrase  the  meaning,  the  human  existence- 
form,  as  one  of  dependence,  according  to  which  the  attri- 
bute denoted  is  something  essential  to  humanity;  for  it 
pertains  to  man,  irrespective  of  sin,  to  be  under  law  to  God, 
to  be  God's  servant.  Meyer's  interpretation  is  substantially 
the  same.  The  servant-form  signifies  the  position  as  a 
servant,  not  of  one  who  serves  in  general  (both  God  and 
man),  or  of  one  who  serves  others  (as  in  Matt.  xx.  28),  or 
of  one  who  is  subject  to  the  will  of  another  (indefinitely), 
but  specially  of  one  who  is  the  servant  of  God,  this  being 
manifestly  implied  in  the  contrast  to  kv  jj.opqyy  ©eov  vnapx<*v- 
As  a  matter  of  mere  interpretation,  Meyer  and  Liebner  are 
right;  but  Ebrard's  view  is  theologically  correct.  The  form 
of  a  servant  is,  in  point  of  fact,  the  state  of  humanity  as  it 
is  on  earth,  subject  to  death  in  consequence  of  sin  (vid. 
Dogmatik,  ii.  p.  203). 

3.  We  come  now,  in  the  last  place,  to  the  puzzling  clause, 
ovh  apitayfidv  tfyrfdaro.  The  question  here  is,  In  what  sense 
is  dpnayjuos  to  be  understood  ?  this  word  being  the  key  to 
the  interpretation  of  the  clause.  Two  quite  different  lines 
of  interpretation  have  been  followed  by  interpreters,  one 
finding  in  the  clause  "  the  assertion,"  the  other  "  the  sur- 
render of  privileges,"  as  Canon  Lightfoot  pithily  puts  it 
{The  Epistle  of  Paul  to  the  Philip  plans,  3d  ed.  p.  131). 
'Apnaynos  being  taken  actively  to  denote  plundering,  usur- 
pation, robbery,  the  natural  meaning  of  the  clause  is  that 
given  in  our  English  version,  following  the  Vulgate  and 
the  Latin  Fathers,  "  thought  it  not  robbery  to  be  equal 
with  God;"  that  is,  was  truly  and  by  inherent  right  God's 
equal.  This  interpretation  has  the  advantage,  that  it  takes 
dpyray/ico?  in  its  most  natural  sense;  for  certainly  the  termi- 
nation juos,  as  is  generally  conceded,  suggests  an  active 
sense.     But  against  it  is  the  weighty  consideration,  that 


366  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

the  connection  of  thought  requires  another  sense — viz.  that 
borne  by  apnay^a,  praeda,  a  piece  of  booty.  What  we  ex- 
pect to  find  the  apostle  saying  is,  that  Christ,  being  in  the 
form  of  God,  did  not  regard  equality  in  state  with  God  as 
a  robber  regards  his  booty, — viz.  as  a  thing  to  be  clutched 
greedily  and  held  fast  at  all  hazards, — but  emptied  Him- 
self. This  accordingly  was  the  view  taken  of  the  passage 
by  many  of  the  Greek  Fathers,  as  Lightfoot  in  his  excursus 
has  shown;  and  this  fact,  by  the  way,  may  help  us  over  the 
grammatical  difficulty  supposed  to  lie  in  the  ending  of  the 
word  aprcay/ioi.  If  the  Greek  Fathers  had  no  scruple  in 
rendering  the  word  as  if  it  had  been  apnayua,  this  may  be 
held  to  prove  that  no  hard  and  fast  line  separates  the  active 
from  the  passive  form  as  to  sense.  Very  many  modern  in- 
terpreters, accordingly,  do  render  the  word  dpitayuoi  as 
apnayjua,  among  whom  may  be  mentioned  Lightfoot, 
Ellicott,  Alford,  Tholuck,  Liebner,  Ebrard.  The  remarks 
of  Ebrard  on  the  passage  are  specially  good.  "To  regard 
anything  as  booty,"  he  says,  "  is  an  intensified  double  con- 
trast to  a  voluntary  renunciation  of  something  which 
rightfully  belongs  to  oneself.  The  disposition  of  self-seek- 
ing regards  even  foreign  property  as  welcome  booty,  much 
more  that  which  it  can  rightfully  claim.  The  disposition  of 
love  does  not  even  regard  its  own  lawful  property  as  the 
robber  regards  his  rapina,  but  freely  gives  it  away  "  {Dog- 
matik,  ii.  34).  Meyer,  while  practically  agreeing  with  the 
interpretation  given  in  the  text  and  by  the  foregoing  com- 
mentators, yet  endeavours  to  retain  for  dpnayuos  its  proper 
active  signification.  The  word,  he  contends,  signifies  not 
praeda,  Geraubtes,  but  actively  taking  prey,  Rauben,  Beute- 
■macJien.  Therefore  the  clause  must  be  interpreted  thus: 
Not  as  a  robbing  regarded  He  the  being  equal  with  God, 
that  is,  not  under  the  view-point  of  gaining  booty  did  He 
place  the  same,  as  if  in  respect  of  His  activity  it  amounted 
to  this,  that  He  appropriated  that  which  did  not  belong  to 
Him  ("  Demnach  ist  zu  erklaren:  nicht  als  ein  Rauben 
betrachtete  er  das  gottgleiche  Sein.  d.  h.  nicht  unter  den 
Gesichtspunkt  des  Beutemachens  stellte  er  dasselbe,  als 
sollte  es  hinsichtlich  seiner  Thatigkeits-ausserung  ihm  darin 
bestehen,  dass  er  ihm  nicht  Eignendes  an  sich  raffete." — 


Appendix. — Lecture  I. — Note  A.  367 

An  die  Philipper,  p.  72).  On  this  interpretation  of  Meyer's; 
Tholuck  remarks,  comparing  it  with  De  Wette's:  "  Longe 
vere  praestantior  Meyeri  interpretatio,  ad  quern  si  omnino 
dpTtayuoi  solam  potestatem  actus  rapiendi  habet,  palma 
loci  feliciter  expediti  deferenda  videtur.  Meyerus  enim, 
postquam  discrimen  inter  sivai  16a  Qew  eivai  lv  /u>p<p%  Osov 
nullum  esse  demonstravit,  hunc  dicti  Paulini  sensum  statuit, 
1  Demnach  ist  zu  erklaren,  nicht  fur  einen  Raub  hielt  er 
das  Gottgleichsein,  d.  h.  nicht  so  sah  er  die  Gottgleichheit 
welche  er  hatte,  an,  als  ware  sie  ein  Verhaltniss  des  Beute- 
machens,  als  bestehe  sie  im  Ansichreissen  fremden  Be- 
sitzes.'  Per  se  quidem,  haec  sententia  Deum  praedatum  ire 
seque  aliorum  bonis  locupletare  noluisse  admodum  absona 
est,  at  ratione  habita  ad  oppositum  comma  septimum  non 
aliud  nisi  hoc  declarat,  tantum  abfuisse  ut  aliorum  copiis 
ditare  voluerit  Christus,  ut  in  aliorum  commodum  divitiis 
suis  se  privaverit,  ac  ministrorum  loco  haberi  voluerit " 
(Dispntatio  Christologica,  p.  17).  That  is  to  say,  Meyer's 
interpretation,  in  Tholuck's  judgment,  amounts  to  this, 
that  Christ  was  so  far  from  enriching  Himself  with  the 
goods  of  others — equality  with  God  being  conceived  of  for 
the  moment  as  the  property  of  another  to  be  got  only  by 
robbery — that  He  willingly  parted  with  His  own — this 
same  equality  with  God — and  became  a  servant.  I  confess 
that  the  turn  given  to  the  clause  by  Meyer  seems  to  me 
too  subtle,  and  even  difficult  to  understand,  and  therefore 
I  much  prefer  the  rendering  which  has  been  adopted  by 
many  competent  scholars:  He  did  not  deem  equality  with 
God  a  thing  to  be  clutched  and  held  fast  at  all  hazards,  as 
a  robber  holds  his  booty. 


LECTURE  II. 


Note  A.— Page  57. 


I  GIVE  in  this  note  all  the  extracts  I  have  met  with  in 
Cyril's  works  bearing  on  the  subject  of  Christ's  knowledge, 
with  a  translation,  in  parallel  columns. 

The  first  extract  is  from  Adversus  Anthropomorphitasy 
cap.  xiv.,  the  subject  of  which  is,  "  Of  those  who  say  that 
the  Son  knew  not  the  last  day,  against  the  Agnoetes." 

After  arguing  against  the  idea  that  the  asserted  ignor- 
ance was  absolute,  or  referred  to  Christ  as  a  divine  Being, 
Cyril  goes  on  to  give  his  own  opinion  thus: 


I.  IIe<p6p7fH£  fiev   6  uovoy£vr)S 
AoyoS  rov  0eov  fxErd  rrjS  dvQpao- 

nOTTJTOi  HOci  TtCCVTU  TOL  aVTTfi,  SlX<X 

HovrjZ  riji  dfxapTiaZ.     MsrpoiS  8£ 

(X.Vf)p007t6z7JTOi  7tpETtEl  OLV  EixoTOOZy 

xai  to  dyvoEiv  rd  e6ohev<x%  ov- 
xovv  xatf  o  1.1EV  voEiroci  QsoS,  oiSe 
Ttdvra  06a  xai  Harrip-  xarf  o  ye 

(.IVY   dv^pODTtOi    6    OVTOi,   OVX   dltO- 

6Ei£za.i  to  xai  dyvorj6ai   doxsiv 

Sid    TO    TtpETCElV    Tlj}    dv^pOOTtOTTJTl. 

"£!6nEp  8s  ovtoS  gov  rj  'Qoorj  7cdvroov 
xai  dvva/nti  Tpo<pt)v  6oanaTixrfv 
eSe'xeto,  to  ttj?  XEVGJ6E00?  ovx  aTi- 
tidZoov  niTpov,  dv ay £y pocTtT at  ds 
xai  vitvaiv,  xai  xomd6a<i'  ovtco 
xai  itavTa  sidoaS  t?)v  npsnovdav 
Trj  drfjpooTtoTr^Ti  dyvoiav  ovx  kpv- 
hpid  7tpo6v£/.tGov  iavTcp.  TiyovEv 
yap  avTov  itavTa  Ta  ttjS  dv^poo- 
itoTrjToS,  dixa  uovrji  rifid/iapTiaS. 


The  only-begotten  Word  of 
God  with  humanity  bore  all  that 
belonged  to  it,  sin  excepted.  But 
to  the  measures  of  humanity  it 
belongs  to  be  ignorant  of  the 
future.  Therefore,  so  far  as  He 
is  God,  He  knows  all  things  as 
doth  the  Father;  but  in  so  far  as 
He  is  also  man,  He  does  not 
shake  off  the  appearance  of  ignor- 
ance, because  such  ignorance  is 
congruous  to  human  nature.  Even 
as  He,  being  the  life  and  power 
of  all,  received  bodily  food,  not 
despising  the  measure  of  the 
kenosis  (it  is  recorded  also  that 
He  slept  and  was  weary);  so  He 
who  knew  all  was  not  ashamed  to 
ascribe  to  Himself  the  ignorance 
pertaining  to  humanity.  For  all 
human    properties   became    His, 


Appendix. — Lecture  II. — Note  A. 


369 


Ensidi)  ds  zee  iitep  eavrovS  oi  ua- 
fjt]rai  jaavQdveiv  t/QeXov,  6xr}itTE- 
rai  Xftrf6iu<s0!i  to  ut)  sidevai  xatf  o 
dv6poono5,  xai  q>ij6i,  /ht/Se  avrovS 
eidevat  tovS  xar  ovpavov  uvraZ 
dyiovZ  dyydXovS,  i'va  ur/  Xv7toov- 
Toa  gjS  ur)  QappnBivTEi  to  fiv6Trj- 
piov. 


saving  sin.  When,  therefore,  the 
disciples  wished  to  learn  things 
above  them,  He  usefully  pretended 
not  to  know,  and  said  that  not  even 
the  angels  in  heaven  knew;  that 
they  might  not  be  grieved  because 
they  were  not  admitted  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  mystery. 


The  words  in  italics  in  English,  and  the  corresponding 
words  in  Greek,  show  the  kernel  of  Cyril's  view. 

II.  The  next  passage  is  from  the  Apologeticus  pro  XII. 
capitibus  contra  Orientates,  Anathematismus  iv.  Speaking 
of  the  text  in  which  Jesus  is  said  to  have  grown  in  wisdom 
as  in  stature,  Cyril  remarks,  against  the  Orientals  whom  he 
charged  with  making  Christ  two  persons,  one  of  whom  real- 
ly did  grow  in  wisdom: 


Ovts  yap  fi£pi6ubv  tgov  vito6- 
T&61GOV  /jetcc  Trfv  svoodiv  Soyjua- 

TlZojiieV,     OVTS    TrjY     Ttji     ©EOTVTOS 

<pv6iv  av^ijdsooS  te  xai  izpoxoitTJS 
d£d£r}6Qai  cpajusv  exeivo  8e  /udX- 
Xov,  oTi  xaT1  oixsioo6iv  oixovom- 
xrjv  kavTov  TtEitoivTai  rd  idtarif? 
6apxoS,  gJ?  6dpi  ysyovGoS. 


For  we  neither  affirm  as  a  dogma 
the  division  of  the  hypostases  after 
the  union,  nor  do  we  say  that  the 
nature  of  Deity  needs  increase  and 
growth;  but  this  rather  we  hold, 
that,  by  way  of  an  economical  ap- 
propriation, He  made  His  own  the 
properties  of  the  flesh,  as  having 
become  flesh. 


What  the  economical  appropriation  means  is  more  clearly 
and  fully  explained  in  the  next  quotation  from  Quod  unus 
sit  Christus,  p.  1332  (Migne): 


III.  'O  ydp  Toi  6oq)6s  EvayyEX\6- 
Trji,  6dpxa  ysyovoTa  Ttpo£i6sv£y- 
xa>v  tov  sloyov,  Ssiuvvdiv  avTov 
oixovo/uixoSs  hq>£VTa  tij  iSia  dap- 
xi,  did  tgov  Tij1;  idiai  q>vd£GoS  iivai 
vouoov.  'AvbpaonoTtfToS  Se  to  itpo- 
xotiteiv  L6tlv  r/Xixia  te  xaido<pia, 
qtairjv  8'  dv  oti  xai  xdpiTi,  dvva- 
vaitrjdmdriS  Tpoitov  Tivd  Toli  tov 
doS/iiaTO?  UETpoiS  xai  Ttji  ev  kxad- 
too  dvvsdEooZ.  'Erspa  8e  av  kv 
rot?  Tf8rj  nai6i,  xai  vnsp  tovto  eti. 
Hv  /.liv  ydp  ovx  dSvvaTov  tjyovv 


For  the  wise  evangelist,  intro- 
ducing the  Word  as  become  flesh, 
shows  Him  economically  submit- 
ting Himself  to  His  own  flesh  and 
going  through  the  laws  of  His  own 
nature.  But  it  belongs  to  hu- 
manity to  increase  in  stature  and  in 
wisdom,  and,  I  might  add,  in 
grace,  intelligence  keeping  pace 
with  the  measures  of  the  body, 
and  differing  according  to  age. 
For  it  was  not  impossible  for  the 
Word  born  of  the  Father  to  have 


J/ 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 


dveqjiHTov ,  a$S  OscS  ra  Ix  IlaTpoS 
q>vvn  Aoyoo,  to  ivooOiv  avTcS 
Sana,  xai  ii  avroov  6itapydvoov 
ai'pEiv  te  vibov,  xai,  eii  uirpov 
7/A.ixiaS  rrji  dpTiooi  kxov6r/S  dvev- 
syxEiv.  $ait)v  <5'  oti  xai  t  v  vrjitito 
6oq>iav  kxcpjjvai  reBavfiadfxevijv 
pdSiov  re  xai  EvrjXarov  r?v  avrca- 
a'A/V  tjv  to  xpi/ua  TEpaToitoiai  ov 
ixaxpdv,  xai  toiS  ri/i  olxovouiaS 
\6yoiSavdpuo6Tov.  'ETskslroydp 
dipO(p7]Ti  to  uv6Tt']piov.  'Heptsi  Sr) 
ovv  otxovoux.x(3i  toiS  Ttji  dvOpoo- 

rtOTTJTOi    JUETpOli     £q>'     iavTco     TO 

xpazelv. 


raised  the  body  united  to  Himsell 
to  its  full  height  from  the  very 
swaddling-clothes.  I  would  say 
also,  that  in  the  babe  a  wonderful 
wisdom  might  easily  have  appeared. 
But  that  would  have  approached 
the  thaumaturgical,  and  would 
have  been  incongruous  to  the 
laws  of  the  economy.  For  the 
mystery  was  accomplished  noise- 
lessly. Therefore  He  economi- 
cally allowed  the  measures  of 
humanity  to  have  power  over 
Himself. 


The  accommodation  to  the  laws  of  the  economy,  according 
to  this  passage,  consisted  in  this:  in  stature,  real  growth; 
in  wisdom,  apparent  growth.  The  wonderful  wisdom  was 
there  from  the  first,  but  it  was  not  allowed  to  appear 
(ex(pr?vai),  to  avoid  an  aspect  of  monstrosity.  That  the 
growth  in  wisdom  was  simply  graduated  manifestation  of 
an  already  present  perfect  knowledge,  appears  clearly  in 
the  next  extract.     It  is  from  Adversus  Nestorium,  p.  154. 

Alluding  to  the  interpretation  put  by  Nestorius  on  the 
text  Luke  ii.  52,  viz.  that  a  real  growth  in  knowledge  was 
meant,  Cyril,  after  pointing  out  the  absurdity  of  such  an 
idea  from  the  divine  point  of  view,  goes  on  to  express  his 
own  opinion  thus: 


IV.  Ovuovv  l8iixrJ>/  av  aita6ii' 
aijQiS  te  xpvhoc  xai  ze'vov,  xai 
izEpispyiaS  d\iov,  si  fipEcpoZ  £>v 
ETiy  (jE0TtpEitri  Ttji  6oq>iai  kitoieivo 
Tijv  evdei^iv  xaTa  fipaxv  8s  xai 
dvaXoycoi  ttJ  tov  (J&j/mro?  7'fXixia. 
xaTEvpvvoov  avTTjv ,  iuq>avrj  te 
dita6i  xa{n6T(2v,  itpoxoitTEiv  dv 
Xsyoiro,  xai  udXa  sixoTcoi. 


Therefore  there  would  have 
been  shown  to  all  an  unwonted 
and  strange  thing,  if,  being  yet 
an  infant.  He  had  made  a  de- 
monstration of  His  wisdom  worthy 
of  God:  but  expanding  it  gradually 
and  in  proportion  to  the  age  of  the 
body,  and  (in  this  gradual  man- 
ner) making  it  manifest  to  all, 
He  might  be  said  to  increase  (in 
wisdom)  very  appropriately. 


The  same  idea  is  expressed  with,  if  possible,  still  greater 
clearness  in  the  next  extract,  which  is  taken  from  Aa 
reginas  de  recta  fide  oratio  altera,  cap.  xvi.: 


Appendix. — Lecture  II — Note  A. 


371 


V.  "To  Se  naidiov  nviavE,xai 
kxparaiouTo  nvEvjuaTi,  irXr/pov- 
ixsvov  6oq>iai'  xai  £«'/3rS  Oeov  rtv 
kit  avzGp."  Kai  ndX.iv  "7?/<pouS 
TtpoehOTtTEv  i/Xixia  xai  6o<piq  xai 
X<xpiri  Qe&>xai  dvbpGJ7toi5."  "Eva 
\sy ovv £$ r ovKv piov  ljjucSv'lT/tiovy 
Xpidrov,  xai  avrcp  npo6veuovTEi 
roc  re  dvbpoomva  xai  BEoitpErtTJ, 

TOli     JUEV      TTJi     XEVG06SG0i     UETpOli 

npeTCsiv  aA^Soj?  Sia/JE/JaiovitsBa 
to  ve  ttjv  6oojuaTixr/v  auzrj6iv  kiti- 
da'xEijBai,  xai  f.ir/v  xai  to  xpaTai- 
ovdbai,  tgov  tov  6oouaToi  ddpvvo- 
jisvGDV  /.lopiccv  xaTd  jipaxv'  xai 
avTo  6s  to  Soxeiv  n\ypov6Bai  60- 
q)ia<s,  Sid  ys  to  oiovsi  npoZ  knido- 
6iv  Tift  Tov6aouaToS  i/Xixia  npEzco- 
dE6TaTT]v  Tiji  kvov6nS  avTaS  6o<piai 
dvacpoiT&v  t?)v  £X(pav6iv  xai 
TavTi  jiisv,  &5s  EcpTjv,  ttj  UETa  6ap- 
xoi  olxovoi-iiq.  Ttpknoi  a y,  xai  ToiS 

Ttji  V<p£6SG0S  UETpOXi. 


"  But  the  boy  increased  and 
waxed  strong  in  spirit,  being 
filled  with  wisdom,  and  the  grace 
of  God  was  upon  Him."  And 
again:  "  Jesus  increased  in  stature 
and  wisdom,  and  in  favour  with 
God  and  men."  In  affirming 
our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  be  one, 
and  assigning  to  Him  both  divine 
and  human  properties,  we  truly 
assert  that  it  was  congruous  to 
the  measures  of  the  kenosis,  on 
the  one  hand,  that  He  should 
receive  bodily  increase  and  grow 
strong,  the  parts  of  the  body  grad- 
ually attaining  their  full  develop- 
ment; and,  on  the  other  hand> 
that  He  should  seem  to  be  filled 
with  wisdom,  in  so  far  as  the 
manifestation  of  the  wisdom  dwell- 
ing within  Him  proceeded,  as  by 
addition,  most  congruously  to 
the  stature  of  the  body;  and  this, 
as  I  said,  agreed  with  the  economy 
of  the  Incarnation,  and  the  meas- 
ures of  the  state  of  humiliation. 


Here,  again,  observe  that  the  growth  in  the  body  is  real, 
the  growth  in  the  mind  only  apparent, — a  growth  in  the 
sense  of  graduated  manifestation  made  to  correspond  with 
the  age  of  the  body,  so  that  no  more  wisdom  might  appear 
than  suited  the  time  of  life,  such  correspondence  being  re- 
quired by  propriety  or  decency. 

The  next  two  quotations  are  from  Thesaurus,  Assertiones 
xxii.  xxviii.  I  take  the  latter  first,  as  referring  to  the  same 
subject  as  the  last,  the  growth  of  the  child  Jesus  in  wisdom. 
Thesaurus,  p.  428: 


VI.    $V<5lXOi    Tli    VO^lOi    OVX    kltl- 

rpeTiEi  tov  avQpoonov  TVS  Tov6nj- 
jaocToi  rfXixiaS  (Sdnsp /usiZova  itoXv 
ttjv  q>povyj6iv  e'xeiv  aXXd  6vvt- 
pEXEi  foaS  xai  7}  tv  r/ulv  6vye6iZ, 
xai  (jv/u/Sadi^Ei  rponov  Tivd  Tali 
tov  6o3/zaToS  npoxoTtalZ.    *Hv  ovv 


A  certain  physical  law  forbids 
man  having  more  wisdom  than 
corresponds  to  the  stature  of  the 
body:  our  understanding  runs 
and  keeps  pace  pari  passu  with 
the  growth  of  the  corporeal  frame. 
Now  the  Word  became  flesh,  as 


57* 


The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 


6  AcyoS  kv  dapxi  ysvojuevoS  av- 
QpcoTtoS  xaOd  ysypaitTav  xai  rjv 
teXeioS,  6oq>ia  tov  Ilixrpoi  xai 
SvvajuiS  Qjv.  'ErtEidi)  Se  rqj  rffi  cpv- 
6£aoi  i/jiiGoy  eQst  7tapaxoopelv  ncoS 
tXP'Jy,  iva.  urj  zi  Ievov  napd  ro?S 
opc36i  i'oni6r)>].  cot  dr0pa>7to?,  xard 
fipaxv  npoi  avlrjv  iovroS  tov  600- 
fiaroSf  diiExdXvTtTEv  kavvov  xai 
odr/jiupai  6o<poov£poi  xapd  zolS 
6poo6iv  rj  xai  dxovovoiv  hqxxivEro. 
.  .  .  on  xapd  tolS  6pcj6i  6oq>QJTE- 
poS  del  xai  ^apif'tfrepoS  ??v,  itpo- 
xotctexv  ei'prjrai,  &3s  evtevSev  rjSrj 
ttjv  TGov  OavjuaZovroov  npoxoit- 
teiv  'i\iv ,  r/  xrfv  avvov. 


it  is  written,  and  was  perfect, 
being  the  wisdom  and  power  of 
God.  But  seeing  it  was  in  a 
sense  necessary  that  He  should 
adapt  Himself  to  the  custom  of 
our  nature,  lest  He  should  be 
reckoned  something  strange  as 
man  by  those  who  saw  Him, 
while  His  body  gradually  advanced 
in  growth  He  concealed  Himself, 
and  appeared  daily  wiser  to  those 
who  saw  and  heard  Him;  .  .  . 
because  He  was  ever  wiser  and 
more  gracious  in  the  esteem  of 
beholders,  He  is  said  to  have 
grown  in  wisdom  and  grace,  so 
that  His  growth  is  to  be  referred 
rather  to  the  habit  of  those  who 
wondered  at  His  wisdom  than  to 
Himself. 


Here  it  is  taught  that  Christ's  growth  in  wisdom  was 
simply  a  holding  back,  or  concealment,  of  wisdom  existing 
in  perfection  from  the  first,  out  of  respect  to  the  physical 
law,  according  to  which,  in  ordinary  men,  body  and  mind 
keep  pace  in  their  growth. 

The  other  passage  in  the  Thesatirus  (Assertio  xxii.  220- 
224)  is  too  long  to  quote  in  full,  and  after  the  foregoing  it 
is  not  necessary  to  give  it  in  extenso.  The  author's  view 
will  appear  sufficiently  from  selected  sentences.  The  sub- 
ject of  discussion  is  the  profession  of  ignorance  made  by 
Jesus  with  reference  to  the  day  and  hour: 


VII.  Ovx  ayvocSv  6  XoyoZ  ovx 
018a  q>v6iv ,  dXXd  Seixvvqov  iv 
iavrcS  xai  to  dvbpaortivov,  co  ud- 
Xi6za  npsTtEi  to  dyroeiv  .  .  . 
'EtzeiS)}  ydp  t?)v  i)u<3v  TCEpisfid- 
Xeto  ddpxa,  did  tovto  xai  tyjv 
rjudov  dyvoiav  i'^Ezz'  Idx^uaTi- 
Zero.  ...  (P.  373.) 
'AyvoEXv  6e  Xsyoov,  xaho  tcSv 
dyvoslv  itEq>vxoT0OY,  SnXovozt 
d i/fjpaD7CGov,  t?)v  ojtioioodiv  eve8v- 
6aTo.  {Ibid.) 


Not  as  being  ignorant  the  Word 
says  I  know  not,  but  showing  in 
Himself  the  human,  to  which 
ignorance  is  very  specially  con- 
gruous. For  since  He  clothed 
Himself  with  our  flesh,  He  af- 
fected to  have  (put  on  the  fashion 
of)  our  ignorance.   .   .   . 

In  saying  that  He  was  ignor- 
ant, He  put  on  the  likeness  of 
those  whose  nature  it  is  to  be 
ignorant,  viz.  men. 


Appendix. — Lecture  II. — Note  A. 


373 


£l6ittp  ovv  6vyxexoopt]xev  iav- 
zov  gJs  dvBpoonov  ysvousvov  u£- 
zd  avSpoo7tGOv  xai  Ttiivyjjv  xai 
Siipyv,  xai  zd  aAAa  7tddx£iy  aitsp 
eipr/zai  7cepi  avzov,  zov  avzov  Srj 
zpoitov  dxoXovhov  jut';  dxavSaXi- 
%£dQai  xdv  cos dv6pG07io?  A€yy,jii£z' 
av6pG07Ccov  dyvoslv,  ozi  zr)V  av- 
zrjv  tf/.ii'y  kcpopzds  ddpxa.  OiSs 
iusy  yap  goS  docpia  xai  AoyoS  gov 
kv  Ilazpv  hi)  side'vai  8e  q>r)di  Si' 
y/uds  xai  jU£9'  t//xgdv  g3s  dvBpcortoi. 
(P-  373)- 

With  reference  to  the  question, 
"Whom  do  men  say  that  I  the 
Son  of  man  am  ? "  Cyril  remarks 

(p.  376)j 

Ovxovv  oixovon£i  zi  itoWdxiS 
zfji  dyroiaS  zo  dxtfua. 

Further  on,  Cyril  adduces  the 
question  put  by  Jesus  to  the  dis- 
ciples, "How  many  loaves  have 
ye  ? "  where  ignorance  was  cer- 
tainly only  affected,  to  prove  that 
dag>ooS  oixoYojuixdoS  sdB'  oz£  zrjv 
ayvoiav  dxyp-aziZ,6u£voSo^2Gozrfp. 
A  few  sentences  further  on  he 
says,  with  reference  to  the  ignor- 
ance of  the  day  and  hour: 

Oixovo/nsz  yap  zoi  XpidzoS  utf 
EiSevai  Xiycov  zr/v  oopav  ixeivt/v, 
xai  ovx  a'A^SoJs  dyvost. 


As,  then,  He  allowed  Himself, 
as  become  man,  to  hunger  and 
thirst  with  men,  and  to  suffer  the 
other  things  which  are  said  con- 
cerning Him;  in  the  same  way  it 
follows  that  we  ought  not  to  be 
scandalized,  when,  as  man,  He 
says  that  He  is  ignorant  along  with 
men,  because  He  bore  the  same 
flesh  with  us.  For  as  Wisdom 
and  as  the  Logos  in  the  Father 
He  knew;  but  He  says  that  He 
knew  not  on  our  account  and 
along  with  us  as  man. 


Therefore  He  often  puts  on 
economically  the  fashion  of  (i.  e. 
simulates)  ignorance. 


that  the  Saviour  manifestly  some- 
times economically  puts  on  the 
fashion  of  ignorance. 


For  Christ  acts  economically 
in  saying  that  He  does  not  know 
that  hour,  and  is  not  really 
ignorant. 


The  last  extract  has  reference  to  the  same  subject, 
Christ's  profession  of  ignorance  concerning  the  day  and 
hour.  It  is  from  the  Apologeticus  contra  Theodoretum  pro 
XII.  capitibtis  (Anathematismus  iv.  p.  416): 

VIII.  Kai  £i7t£p  idziv  eis  z£  xai  And  if  He  is  one  and  the  same 

6  avzoi  Sid  zo  zrjs  dXr/Bovi  evca-  in    virtue    of  the  true    unitv    of 

dEooS  xpi?M<x,  *ai  ovx  ezspos  xai  natures,   and  is  not  one  and  an- 

£Z£poS  Siyprjfxevoos  ze  xai  dvd  ue-  other  (two  persons)  disjunctively 

pot,  avzov  navzaas  kdzai  xai  zo  and  parti  tively,  to  Him  will  belon» 

tidsvai  xai  pev  zot  xai  zo  u?)  elds'-  both  to  know  and  to  seem  not  to 


374  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

vai  SoheIv.    Ouhovy  oide  /uev  uai  know.      Therefore  He  knows  on 

avrds  Oeihgos  &5s  6o<pia  rov  liar-  the  divine  side  as  the  Wisdom  of 

pds.    'EttsiS?}  8s  rd  rrjs  dyvoovdyi  the  Father.      But  since  He  sub- 

dv^pcoitorrjroi  vneSv  /.isrpov,  oi-  jected  Himself  to  the  measure  of 

■KovouiH&<;  otxEiovzai  uai  tovto  humanity,   He   economically  ap- 

usrd  zcSv  dA.\oDY,  xai  rat,  uaQd-  propriates  this  also  with  the  rest, 

xep  Ecpyjv  apricot,  f/yvorjHooZ  ov-  although,   as  I  said  a  little  ago, 

Sivt  dW  etdoas  aitccvrajuerd  rov  being    ignorant    of  nothing,   but 

Ilarpoi.  knowing  all  things  with  the  Father. 

Neander,  commenting  on  this  passage,  very  justly  re- 
marks that  Cyril  expresses  himself  in  words  to  which  he 
could  hardly  attach  any  definite  meaning.  What  Cyril 
does  say,  however,  is  not  so  utterly  devoid  of  meaning  as 
the  words  which  are  put  into  his  mouth  by  the  English 
translator  of  Neander  (Bohn's  edition),  which  are  absolute- 
ly unintelligible,  owing  to  a  misrendering  of  the  German 
original.  The  sentence  beginning  with  'EitEiSrj  Si  is  thus 
rendered:  "When  Christ  subjected  Himself  to  the  general 
mass  of  human  nature,  which  is  limited  in  its  knowledge, 
He  appropriated  this  part  of  it  also  by  a  special  economy, 
although  still  He  had  no  bounds  to  His  knowledge,  but 
was,  with  the  Father,  omniscient."  It  is  evident  that  in 
using  the  word  mass  (printed  in  italics  as  here  given),  the 
translator  has  mistaken  the  German  word  Mass,  measure 
{nivpov),  for  Masse,  mass  (Neander's  Church  History,  vol. 
iv.  p.  151). 


LECTURE  III. 

Note  A.— Page  85. 

In  tracing  the  origin  of  the  Lutheran  Christology  to  the 
controversy  concerning  the  Supper,  I  am  aware  that  the: 
leading  modern  authorities  of  all  schools,  Dorner,  Thoma- 
sius,  Schneckenburger,  Baur,  agree  in  asserting  that 
Luther's  views  of  the  person  of  Christ,  in  their  maim 
features,  were  fixed  before  the  Sacramentarian  dispute 
began.  Dorner's  opinions  on  the  point  are  accessible  to 
all,  and  need  not  be  quoted  (see  Doctrine  of  the  Person 
of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  53  ff.).  Thomasius  {Chris ti 
Person  und  Werk,  ii.  p.  13)  says  that  the  controversy  with 
the  Swiss  only  gave  Luther  the  occasion  for  the  construc- 
tion of  his  Christology,  the  innermost  motive  lying,  not  in 
the  doctrine  of  the  Supper,  but  in  the  two  great  moments 
of  his  faith,  living  confidence  in  the  historical  fact  of  re- 
demption, and  actual  communion  with  the  living  Christ, 
and,  in  Him,  with  God.  Schneckenburger  {Vergleichende 
Darstellung,  ii.  p.  193)  says:  "  The  dogma  of  the  person  of 
Christ  became  a  subject  of  dispute  in  the  first  decade  of  the 
Reformation,  through  the  difference  on  the  subject  of  the 
Supper.  But  it  must  not  therefore  be  imagined  that  the 
diverse  conception  of  the  person  of  Christ  was  simply  a 
secondary,  auxiliary  theory,  designed  to  justify  that  differ- 
ence. The  difference  in  reference  to  the  Supper  was  rather 
only  the  occasion  through  which  the,  in  some  respects, 
more  radical  difference,  in  reference  to  Christ's  person,  be- 
came a  matter  of  self-consciousness."  Baur  {Die  LeJire 
von  der  Dreieinigkeit,  iii.  p.  399)  expresses  a  similar  opinion: 


2,7 6  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

"  It  was  Luther,  as  is  well  known,  who  through  the  dogma 
of  the  ubiquity  of  Christ's  human  nature  (in  connection  with 
his  doctrine  of  the  Supper)  gave  occasion  to  the  doctrine  of 
Christ's  person  becoming  a  cause  of  division  among  the 
Protestants.  That  Luther  connected  the  doctrine  of  ubi- 
quity with  that  of  the  Supper,  was  the  natural  result  of  his 
way  of  viewing  Christ's  presence  in  the  Supper;  but  the 
former  doctrine  in  turn  presupposes  a  view  of  the  person  of 
Christ  which  rested  on  the  same  mode  of  thinking  with  his 
view  of  the  Supper,  which  was  not  first  suggested,  but  only 
brought  into  clear  consciousness,  by  the  Sacramentarian 
controversy."  I  believe  that  the  account  thus  given  in 
cemmon  by  such  highly  competent  authorities,  of  Luther's 
opinions  anterior  to  1527,  the  date  of  his  work,  Dass  diese 
Worte  "  das  ist  mein  Leib"  nodi  feste  stehen,  is  substantially 
correct,  and  that  the  German  reformer,  previously  to  thai 
publication,  held  a  view  of  Christ's  person  which  pre- 
disposed him  to  maintain  the  bodily  presence  in  the  Supper, 
when  it  was  called  in  question.  But  it  is  open  to  doubt 
whether  Luther  previously  held  ubiquity  to  be  a  necessary 
consequence  of  the  union  of  the  natures,  or  whether  he 
would  ever  have  advocated  that  tenet,  had  it  not  been  for 
the  exigencies  of  the  Sacramentarian  controversy.  Dorner, 
indeed,  maintains  that  Luther  changed  his  views  on  that 
point  after  the  controversy  with  Zuingli  arose,  and  claims 
Luther's  authority  in  support  of  his  own  theory  of  a  gradual 
Incarnation,  which  leaves  room  for  a  real  human  develop- 
ment, and  does  not  prematurely  overlay  the  humanity  with 
divine  attributes  {Person  of  Christ,  div.  ii.  vol.  ii.  p.  53  ff.). 
Thomasius,  on  the  other  hand,  represents  Luther  as  having 
always  held  a  twofold  aspect  of  Christ's  humanity,  a 
natural  and  a  supernatural,  a  visible  and  an  invisible 
{Person  nnd  Werk,  vol.  ii.  p.  335). 

Note  B. — Page  107. 

As  the  literature  bearing  on  the  Tiibingen-Giessen  dispute 
is  all  but  inaccessible  to  students  in  this  country,  I  have 
had  to  take  my  information  from  Thomasius,  Baur,  and  the 
■dissertation  of  Cotta  on  the  states  appended  to  the  fourth 


Appendix. — Lecture  III. — Note  B.  377 

Locus  of  Gerhard's  Loci  TJieologici.  The  following  extract 
from  the  latter  may  give  readers  a  sufficiently  clear  idea  of 
the  state  of  this  controversy: — 

Missa  controversia  hac  leviori  (as  to  whether  the  exinani« 
tion  refers  to  both  natures,  or  to  one  only)  aliud  jam  nobis 
commemorandum  est  certamen  theologicum,  idque  maxime 
infaustum,  quod,  ineunte  seculo  17,  inter  ipsos  ecclesiae 
nostrae  doctores,  ac  speciatim  Tubingenses  atque  Giessenses 
de  idiomatum  divinorum  carni  Christi  communicatorum  in 
statu  exinanitionis  usu,  olim  exarsit,  ac  per  tempus  bene 
longum  fuit  continuatum.  Statuerunt  Giessenses,  Christum 
hominem  in  statu  exinanitionis  proprietatibus  quidem  divinis, 
verb.  grat.  omnipraesentia,  omniscientia,  omnipotentia,  etc., 
fuisse  gavisum,  sed  earum  usu  ordinario  se  penitus  abdicasse, 
neque  adeo  acceptam  majestatem  divinam  semper  atque 
incessanter  usurpasse,  siquidem  ejusdem  usus  ex  divina 
magis  voluntate,  quam  unione  personali  sit  derivendus.  In 
contrariam  vero  sententiam  heic  ivere  theologi  Tubingenses, 
asserentes,  Christum  hominem  in  ipso  exinanitionis  stacu, 
vi  unionis  personalis,  semper  fuisse  omnipraesentem,  omnis- 
cium,  nee  omnipotentiae  divinae  usu  sese  abdicasse,  nisi 
quoad  actum  reflexum,  in  munere  suo  sacerdotali,  iisque 
quae  operi  redemptionis  perficiendo  obstare  poterant;  in 
officio  autem  regio,  et  quoad  actum  directum  idiomata  divina 
usurpasse,  regimenque  in  ecclesiam  omnesque  creaturas, 
licet  latenter  (exceptis  tamen  miraculis  atque  operationibus 
extraordinariis,  quae  palam  egit)  semper  exercuisse.  Patet 
ex  his,  litem  non  fuisse  de  unione,  quam  vocant,  personali, 
nee  de  idiomatum  communicatione  ac  possessione,  sed  de 
eorum  duntaxat  usu.  Quum  vero  controversia  haec  diversas 
ambitu  suo  complectatur  quaestiones  speciales,  de  quibus 
olim  acriter  fuit  disceptatum,  easdem  sigillatim  heic  per- 
censebimus.  Quaestio  prima  erat  de  fundamento  adaequato 
et  formali  omnipraesentiae,  quin  et  reliquorum  attributorum 
divinorum  carni  Christi  communicatorum;  an  illud  in  sola 
unione  personali,  an  vero  in  libera  Christi  voluntate 
ejusdemque  sessione  ad  dextram  patris  sit  collocandum  ? 
Prius  statuebant  Tubingenses,  posterius  Giessenses.  Altera 
quaestio  spectabat  ad  justam  atque  adaequatam  omniprae- 
sentiae   divinae    notionem.     Docebant    theologi    Tubing. 


378  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

omnipraes.  consistere  in  adessentia  vel  propinquitate  ad 
creaturas,  Christumque  vi  unionis  personalis,  adeoque  non 
actu  naturae  humanae  sed  personae  in  ipso  exinanitionis 
statu,  omnibus  creaturis  indistanter  fuisse  praesentem.  Ast 
negabant  hoc  ex  altera  parte  Giessenses,  statuentes,  ide.im 
operationis  ingredi  definitionem  omnipraesentiae,  ejus- 
demque  characterem  constitutivum,  quern  vocant,  par- 
temque  essentialem  esse,  nee  Christum  exinanitum,  eo 
sensu,  ut  statuunt  Tubingenses,  praesentem  se  se  ex- 
hibuisse.  Accedebat  tertia  quaestio  cum  priori  connexa, 
utrum  Christo  homini  in  statu  exin.  divina  apud  creaturas 
operatio  eaque  universalis  sit  tribuenda,  ita  ut  cuncta  in 
coelo  et  in  terra,  sapientia  ac  potentia  secum  communi- 
cata  gubernarit,  adeoque  acceptam  majestatem  divinam 
semper  et  incessanter  exercuerit.  Adfirmantem  senten- 
tiam  amplexi  sunt  Tubing,  atque  docuerunt  Christum 
exinanitum  coelum  atque  terram  gubernasse,  eadem  ra- 
tione,  uti  gubernationem  hanc  in  statu  exalt,  ad  dextram 
patris  sedens,  exerceat,  hoc  duntaxat  observato  discrimine, 
quod  in  st.  exin.  gubernationem  istam  texerit  atque  occulta- 
verit  sub  forma  servili,  nunc  autem  conditione  ista  servili 
deposita,  eandem  gloriose  ac  majestatice  declaret  ac  mani- 
festet.  Huic  vero  adserto  contradixerunt  Giess.  atque 
negarunt  Christum  temp.  exin.  imperium  in  omnes  creaturas 
exercuisse;  hoc  enim  involvere  plenarium  div.  majestatis 
usum,  quern  Christus,  finito  demumexin.  statu  sit  consecutus, 
sec.  oraculum  Paulinum  Phil.  ii.  9,  10.  Denique  quarto  dis- 
putatum  quoque  fuit,  an  exinanitio  fuerit  vera,  realis  atque 
omnimoda  abstinentia  ab  usu  tarn  directo,  quam  refiexo  div. 
majest.  in  conjunctissima  duarum  naturarum  unione  ac- 
ceptae  ?  an  vero  tantum  constiterit  in  occultatione  maj.  div. 
per  formam  servi  assumptam  ?  Priorem  sententiam  pro- 
pugnarunt  Giess.  poster.  Tubing.,  qui  et  hoc  addebant, 
occultationem  istam  duntaxat  locum  habuisse  in  usu 
idiomatum  divinorum  directo,  nee  tamen  semper,  prout  ex 
miraculis,  palam  a  Christo  perpetrato,  quae  divinitatis 
Christum  inhabitantis  fuerint  radii,  clare  satis  pateat. 
Quod  vero  ad  proprietatum  divinarum  usum,  quern  vocant, 
reflexurn,  redemptions  operi  obstiturum,  attinet,  Christum 
eodem  sponte  se  se  penitus  abdicasse.     Atque  de  hac  ipsa 


Appendix. — Lecture  III. — Note   C.  379 

evacuatione  usus  idiomatum  divinorum  reflcxi  exponenda 
esse  verba  gentium  apostoli  Phil.  ii.  7  £h£v&)6e  kawov.  (Dis- 
sertatio  de  Statibns  et  Officio  Christi  Mediatorio,  sees, 
v.,  vi.) 

Note  C. — Page  115. 

Schneckenburger  says:  "  When  we  review  the  Lutheran 
position,  it  is  not  difficult  to  discover  the  inner  threads  by 
which  the  speculative  Christology  is  connected  with  and 
produced  from  it.  The  Reformed  argues:  That  humanity 
of  the  Redeemer  assumed  into  real  personal  unity,  from  the 
conception  in  utero  virginis,  existing  illocally,  and  still 
after  the  exaltation  at  the  right  hand  of  God,  on  the  one 
hand  incorporated  with  the  collegium  sanctae  trinitatis,  on 
the  other  hand,  on  that  account,  almighty,  omniscient,  omni- 
present in  the  world — is  not  the  humanity  of  a  particular 
man,  but  something  exalted  above  all  human  individuals; 
so  to  speak,  the  idea  of  perfected  humanity,  and  the  idea  of 
the  Godhead  as  one  with  the  essence  of  humanity,  a  perfect 
nonentity.  And  whereas  in  the  Lutheran  theory,  from  the 
moment  of  incarnation,  or  at  least  of  exaltation,  this  divine- 
human  personality  has  all  authority  over  the  world,  this 
cannot  be  an  absolutely  new  beginning  for  the  divine  Being, 
the  unity  of  the  divine  with  that  general  humanity  cannot 
fall  within  time,  what  begins  in  time  is  simply  the  knowl- 
edge thereof  by  the  individual  man.  God  cannot  have 
determined  Himself  in  time  to  assume  human  nature;  the 
assumption  on  God's  part  must  be  an  eternal  one,  so  that 
the  assumed  humanity  is  exempt  from  the  limits  of  time  as 
well  as  of  space.  This  God-manhood,  therefore,  in  its 
essence  precedes  individual  human  existence;  and  as,  on 
the  one  hand,  the  individual  man  must  have  part  therein  to 
be  truly  man,  and  to  correspond  to  his  idea  {unio  mysticd); 
so,  on  the  other,  must  each  human  individual  have  the 
capacity  to  take  part  therein.  All  the  functions  ascribed 
to  the  God-man  are  in  this  way  functions  of  humanity 
itself.  Whence  then  have  sprung  the  fantasies  which  Chris- 
tendom has  twined  around  a  historical  individual,  but  out 
of  its  own  spirit,  which,  seeing  in  this  person  the  proper 
essence  of  man,  unconsciously  gave  objective  existence  to 


380  The  Htimiliatioii  of  Christ. 

the  ideal  which  lies  hid  in  the  depths  of  the  race  ?  What 
is  the  historical  Christ  but  the  occasional  cause  of  this 
fantastic  self-objectification  ?  What  is  the  xpvrlns  of  the 
Idiom-communication,  but  the  state  of  the  finite  spirit 
become  unconscious  in  its  concrete  manner  of  existence,  of 
what  as  absolute  organizing  world-reason  it  produced  ? 
And  what,  but  a  consequence  of  the  doctrine  that  the  caro 
Christi  in  ipso  statu  exinanitionis  tccte  ruled  the  world,  is 
it,  when  to  the  human  spirit  the  knowledge  of  nature  and 
of  her  laws  is  ascribed,  because  all  recollection  has  not  died 
out  in  its  mind  of  what  as  unconscious  nature-spirit  it 
created  ?  And  this  its  humiliation  is  the  pole  of  its  exalta- 
tion, in  which  as  absolute  spirit  it  returns  to  itself  again. 
In  this  fashion  does  the  speculative  Christology  in  the 
hands  of  Strauss  present  itself  as  a  phase  in  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Lutheran  type  of  the  doctrine,  and  to  this 
extreme  the  dogma  was  destined  inevitably  to  come,  as 
soon  as  the  old  system  was  delivered  from  the  trammels  0/ 
an  extramundane  God,  and  of  sin."  Similar  remarks  occur  in 
the  work  on  the  two  states  {Vom  doppelten  Stande  Christi, 
38-40).  [In  German:  Sehen  wir  nach  der  lutherischen  Po- 
sition hiniiber,  so  fallt  es  auch  hier  nicht  schwer,  die  inner 
Faden  zu  entdecken,  wodurch  die  speculative  Christologie 
mit  ihr  zusammenhangt  und  von  ihr  hervorgetrieben  wird. 
Der  Reformirte  argumentirt:  jene  Menschheit  des  Erlosers, 
als  von  der  Conception  in  utero  Virginis  an  real  in  die 
personliche  Einheit  aufgenommen,  illocal  existirend  und 
doch  nach  der  Erhohung  zur  Rechten  Gottes,  einerseits 
dem  collegium  sanctae  trinitatis  incorporirt,  andererseits 
desshalb  allmachtig,  allwissend,  allgegenwartig  in  der  Welt 
— das  ist  nimmermehr  die  Menschheit  eines  Menschen, 
sondern  etwas  liber  alien  Menschen-Individuen  Erhabenes, 
gleichsam  die  Idee  der  Menschheitsvollendung,  und  die 
.Idee  des  Gottheit  als  Eins  mit  dem  Wesen  der  Menschheit 
,an  sich,  ein  vollendetes  non-ens.  Wie  lutherisch  vom 
Momente  der  incarnatio,  oder  wenigstens  der  exaltatio  an, 
diese  gottmenschliche  Personlichkeit  alles  Regiment  aui 
der  Welt  hat,  so  kann,  so  soil  damit  fur  das  Gottliche  an 
sich  selbst  doch  nicht  ein  absolut  Neues  beginnen,  das 
Einssein  des  Gottlichen  mit  jener  allgemeinen  Menschheit 


Appendix. — Lecture  III. — Note  C.  381 

nicht  eigentlich  in  die  Zeit  fallen,  sondern  was  von  ihm  in 
die  Zeit  fallt  und  anfangt,  ist  bloss  das  Wissen  des  individ- 
uellen  Menschen  urn  dieselbe.  Gott  kann  sich  nicht  erst 
in  der  Zeit  zur  Annahme  der  Menschennatur  entschlossen 
haben,  sondern  diese  Annahme  muss  von  Seiten  Gottes 
eine  ewige  sein,  also  jene  den  Schranken  des  Raums  en- 
triickte  Menschheit  auch  den  Schranken  der  Zeit  entriickt 
sein.  Diese  Gottmenschheit  geht  also  ihrem  Wesen  nach 
dem  einzelnen  Menschsein  voraus;  und  so  gewiss  das  Men- 
schen-Individuum  daran,  um  wahrhaft  Mensch  zu  sein  und 
seiner  Idee  zu  entsprechen,  Theil  haben  muss  (unio  mystica), 
so  gewiss  muss  das  einzelne  Menschen-Individuum  von 
Haus  aus  der  Fahigkeit  nach  daran  Theil  haben.  Alle 
jene  dem  Gottmenschen  zugesprochenen  Produkte  und 
Funktionen  sind  so  Funktionen  des  Menschheit  selbst. 
Woher  anders  stammen  also  die  Phantasieen,  welche  die 
Christenheit  um  ein  historisches  Individuum  geschlungen 
hat,  als  aus  dem  eigenen  Gemiithe,  das  in  diesem  Individ- 
uum, das  eigen  Wesen  des  Menschen  anschauend,  Alles 
bewusstloss  objectivirte,  was  in  der  Tiefe  der  Gattung 
von  ldealem  verborgen  liegt  ?  Was  ist  der  historische 
Christus  anders  als  bloss  der  Veranlassungspunkt  zu  dieser 
phantastischen  Selbstobjektivirung  ?  Was  ist  die  xpvipis 
der  Idiomen-communication,  wenn  nicht  der  Zustand  des 
endlichen  Geistes,  der  sich  in  seiner  concreter  Existenz- 
weise  nicht  mehr  unmittelbar  bewusst,  was  er  als  absolute 
organisirende  Weltvernunft  producirt  hat  ?  Was  ist  es, 
wenn  nicht  die  Consequenz  der  Lehre  dass  die  caro  Christi 
in  ipso  statu  exinanitionis  tecte  das  '  Regiment;  der  Welt 
ausiibe.  .  .  .  wenn  dem  Menschen-geiste  darum  die  Kennt- 
niss  der  Natur  und  ihrer  Gesetze  zugeschrieben  ist,  weil 
ihm  nicht  durchaus  alle  Erinnerung  dessen  erloschen  sei, 
was  er  als  bewusstloser  Naturgeist  geschaffen  ?  Und  jene 
seine  Erniedrigung  ist  der  Pol  seiner  Erhohung,  in  welcher 
er  als  absoluter  Geist  zu  sich  selbst  zuruckkehrt.  In  sol- 
cher  Weise  stellt  sich  die  speculative  Christologie  wie  sie 
namentlich  bei  Strauss  auftritt,  als  eine  Phase  auf  der  Seite 
der  christologischen  Entwickelungen  innerhalb  des  luther- 
ischen  Lehrtypus  heraus,  und  es  musste  zu  diesem  Ex- 
trem  fortgehen,  so  wie  die  dem  alten  Systeme  anhaftende 


382  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

Klammern  des  extramundanen  Gottes,  und  der  Sunde 
wegfielen  ( VergleicJiende  Darstellung,  Zweiter  Theil,  pp. 
218,  219).] 

Note  D. — Page  129. 

Schweitzer  says:  "  The  Christology  of  the  Reformed 
appears  to  rest  on  the  following  principles: — 1.  Christ 
fully  belongs  to  our  race,  a  man  consisting  of  body  and 
soul,  named  the  natura  Jiumana,  the  humanitas  of  Christ. 
2.  Christ's  humanity  is  by  the  highest  fulness  of  gifts  of  grace 
as  highly  exalted  as  a  human  soul  possibly  can  be;  in  par- 
ticular, the  proclivity  called  original  sin  is  by  this  equipment 
so  broken  that  soul  and  body  can  attain  to  a  sinless  course 
of  life:  praestantia  Juimanae  Christi  naturae.  3.  To  this 
comparatively  highest  worth  of  Christ  is  joined  a  specifically 
unique  one:  the  Logos  life  of  God,  the  source  of  the 
prophetic  illumination,  dwells  in  Christ  as  the  innermost 
animating  principle  of  His  personality,  divina  Christi  natura 
or  more  strictly,  the  participation  in  God  thereby,  that  this 
man  is  kwn.66Ta.T0z  re?  X6ya>\  He  is  the  Son  of  God,  and 
the  Only-begotten.  4.  The  Being  and  Life  emanating  from 
God,  or  the  Logos,  is  as  such  transcendent,  infinite;  but  in 
the  way  in  which  He  appears  as  the  principle  of  the  Person- 
ality of  Christ,  this  divine  Being  and  Life  passed  into  human 
limitations  without  absorbing  these:  idomata  divina.  non 
communicantur  humanae  naturae,  ocailtatio  majestatis  divinae. 
5.  Precisely  this  theanthropically  formed  existence  and 
activity  is  the  redeeming  work,  and  it  appears  as  the  com- 
pleted religious  life  and  religious  moral  activity:  opera 
redemtionis  a  persona  secundum  utramque  naturam  profiscis- 
cuntur.  6.  This  economic  Christology  rests  on  the  real 
Trinity  in  the  economy  of  the  divine  Being:  non  tres  pcr- 
sonae,  non  pater,  non  spiritus  sanctus,  non  essentia  tribus  per- 
sonis  communis,  sed  filius,  sive  bXoyoz,  iucarnatus  est  qua 
vTt66Ta6iz.  The  Christology  resting  on  these  foundations 
is  not  indeed  carried  fully  out,  because  the  old  formulae 
exercised  a  disturbing  influence.  The  disturbance,  however, 
is  not  so  great  as  appears.  It  is  said,  e.g.,  starting  from 
the  formula,  duae  naturae  in  una  persona:  in   Christ  is  a 


Appendix. — Lecture  III. — Note  D.  383 

humanly  limited  knowledge,  secundum  hum.  ejus  naturam, 
an  absolute  secundum  divinam;  the  latter  statement  has 
reference  to  the  divine  nature  only  in  the  abstract.  The 
concrete  Theanthropos  has  emptied  Himself  of  the  absolute 
knowledge  of  God;  for  had  He  as  a  real  possession  the 
absolute  and  the  limited  beside  each  other,  the  personality 
would  be  cleft  asunder;  and  had  He  the  absolute  knowl- 
edge really,  the  human  finite  knowledge  would  be  absorbed. 
The  intention,  therefore,  was  to  maintain  the  perfection  of 
the  religious  life  of  Christ  only  in  a  humanly  limited  intelli- 
gence, and  to  derive  His  freedom  from  error  from  the  divine 
elements.  The  reproach  is  unfounded  that  the  Reformed 
shrank  from  the  idea  of  the  divine  being  realized  in  the 
temporal;  all  that  they  shrank  from,  and  rightly,  was  the 
ignoring  of  the  forms  under  which  alone  this  process  is 
conceivable,  and  can  be  accomplished;  they  aimed  at  a 
historic  reality;  they  meant  to  teach  that  God  really  be- 
came man,  became  humanly  determined;  but  they  did  not 
quite  manage  to  put  the  matter  rightly,  to  give  the  idea 
adequate  expression."  [In  German:  Es  scheint  die  Chris- 
tologie  der  Reformirten  beruhe  auf  folgenden  Grundlagen: 
1.  Christus  ist  vollig  unserer  Gattung  angehorig,  ein  Mensch 
aus  Leib  und  Seele  bestehend,  was  man  die  natura  kumana, 
die  humanitas  Ch.  nennt.  2.  Christi  Menschheit  ist  durch 
hochste  Fiille  von  Gnadengaben  so  hoch  gehoben,  als  eine 
menschliche  Seele  iiberhaupt  gehoben  werden  kann,  na- 
mentlich  ist  jener  Erbsiindenhangin  Folge  dieser  Austattung 
so  gebrochen,  dass  Seele  und  Leib  eine  siindlose  Lebens- 
fuhrung  erreichen:  praestantia  humanae  Ch.  naturae.  3.  Zu 
dieser  graduell  hochsten  Wiirde  Christi  kommt  endlich  eine 
specifisch  einzige;  das  Logosleben  Gottes,  die  Propheten 
erleuchtend,  wohnt  Christo  ein  als  innerstes  die  Personlich- 
keit  beseelendes  Princip,  divina  Ch.  natura,  oder  genauer 
das  Theilhaben  an  Gott  dadurch,  dass  dieser  Mensch 
tYvn66zaToi  too  Xoyao  ist;  er  ist  der  Sohn  Gottes,  und  zwar 
der  eingeborene.  4.  Das  emanirte  gottliche  Sein  und  Le- 
ben  order  der  Logos  ist  als  solcher  transcendent,  unend- 
lich;  in  der  Art  aber,  wie  er  als  Kern  der  Personlichkeit 
Christi  zur  Erscheinung  kommt,  ist  dieses  gottliche  Sein 
und  Leben  in  menschliche  Bestimmtheit  eingegangen,  ohne 


384  The  Humiliation  of   Christ. 

ciiese  zu  absorbiren,  idomata  divina  non  communicantur 
humanae  naturae,  occult  at  io  majestatis  divinae.  5.  Gerade 
diese  theanthropisch  gestaltete  Existenz  und  Wirksamkeit 
ist  die  erlosende,  und  erscheint  als  das  vollendete  religiose 
Leben  und  religios  sittliche  Wirken — opera  redemtionis  a 
persona  secundum  utramque  naturam  profisciscuntur.  6.  Diese 
okonomische  Christologie  ruht  auf  der  realen  Trinitat  in 
der  Oekonomie  des  gottlichen  Wesens;  non  tres  personae, 
non  pater,  non  spir.  sane,  non  essentia  tribus  personis  com- 
munis, sed  filius,  sive  6  \6yos,  iucaruatus  est  qua  V7t66ra6is. 
Die  auf  diesen  Grundlagen  ruhende  Christologie  ist  freilich 
nicht  rein  durchgefuhrt  worden,  indem  das  Unbequeme  der 
alten  Formeln  storend  eingewirkt  hat.  Diese  Storungen 
sind  aber  nicht  so  bedeutend  als  sie  scheinen.  Sagt  man  z. 
B.,  von  der  Formel  ausgehend — duae  naturae  in  una  persona, 
in  Christus  sei  ein  menschlich  beschriinktes  Wissen  secundum 
hum.  ejus  naturam,  ein  absolutes  secundum  divinam:  so  gilt 
letzeres  von  der  div.  natura  in  abstracto.  Der  concrete 
Theanthropos  aber  hat  sich  dessen  entaussert;  denn  hatte 
*r  als  wirklichen  Besitz  das  absolute  und  beschrankte 
neben  einander,  so  wurde  allerdings  die  Personlichkeit 
f^espalten;  hatte  er  das  absolute  wirklich,  so  ware  das 
oienschlich  endliche  Wissen  absorbirt.  Man  will  also  nur 
.n  menschlich  bestimmter  Intelligenz  die  Vollendung  des 
Religiosen  behaupten  und  hat  diese  Irrthumslosigkeit  vom 
Gottlichen  abgeleitet.  Ungegriindet  ist  der  Vorwurf,  man 
scheue  sich  reformirter  Seits  das  Gottliche  im  Zeitlichen 
verwirklicht  zu  glauben;  vielmehr  scheut  man  sich  nur,  und 
mit  Recht,  die  Formen  zu  ignoriren,  unter  denen  allein 
dieser  Process  denkbar  ist  und  vollzogen  werden  kann;  man 
will  gerade  eine  historische  Realitiit,  man  will  lehren,  dass 
Gott  wirklich  Mensch  werde,  sich  menschlich  bestimme, 
aber  man  dringt  noch  nicht  durch  {Die  Glaubenslehre 
der  evangelisch-reformirten  Kirche,  Zweiter  Band,  pp. 
336,  337)-] 

Note  E.— Page  133. 

The  Reformed  theologians  were  not  altogether  of  one 
mind  as  to  the  relation  of  the  humanity  of  Christ  to  the 


Appendix. — Lecture  III. — Note  E.  385 

category  of  personality.  The  prevailing  view,  however,  was 
that  the  human  nature  of  our  Lord,  while  dwTc66xaroz  in 
itself,  was  iwitodraros  through  the  Logos.  They  did  not 
hesitate  to  call  Christ  a  man.  Such  phrases  as  these  occur 
in  the  Admonitio :  iste  homo  Deus  est;  huic  homini  datam 
esse  ipsam  Deitatem.  Nevertheless,  according  to  the  same 
document,  the  human  nature  is  so  borne  and  preserved  by 
the  Logos,  even  in  glory,  that  "  ne  quidem  persona  sit  per 
se;  sed  duntaxat  natura,  quae  ne  existeret  quidem,  nisi  sic 
gestaretur  a  persona  \6yov "  {persona  is  here  used  in  the 
literal  ancient  sense  of  vn66ra6i%,  what  is  placed  under  as 
a  support,  not  in  the  modern  sense  of  the  Ego).  To  the 
same  effect  Zanchius,  who  starts  the  difficulty,  If  the  Logos 
assumed  a  human  body  with  a  rational  soul,  does  that  not 
amount  to  assuming  a  person  ?  and  then  disposes  of  the 
"  magna  dubitatio  "  by  laying  down  the  position,  that  the 
humanity  was  <xvvit66raroz  in  se,  because  it  never  subsisted 
separately  from  the  Logos  {De  incamatione,  lib.  ii.,  theses 
ii.  and  Hi.).  He  has  no  hesitation,  however,  in  calling  Christ 
a  man;  e.g.:  aliud  enim  quum  nominamus  animam  et  carnem 
Christi,  tunc  enim  de  natura  loquimur;  et  aliud  quum  earn 
nominamus  hominem,  Personam  enim  tunc  indicamus  qua- 
tenus  in  humana  subsistat  natura.  Ideo  damus  Christum 
hominem  esse  ubique;  negamus  autem  carnem  vel  animam 
jbique  (lib.  ii.  thes.  iii.  p.  64).  Again,  p.  68:  Haeresis 
*st  Nestoriana  tarn  negare  Deum  Patrem  esse  hujus 
hominis  quam  negare  Mariam  matrem  esse  hujus  Dei.  The 
same  view  is  given  by  Henry  Alting:  Non  potest  certe 
Natura  Humana  esse  vito6za6is,  Persona;  verum  necesse  est 
ut  in  se  dvvn66raroi,  evv7t66raroS  autem  sit  in  Xoyao  qui 
accepit  formam  servi.  Eo  tamen  nihil  decessit  Naturae 
Humanae  perfectioni;  quia  mansit  substantia,  mansit  parti- 
bus  suis  et  proprietatibus  integra,  mansit  etiam  individualis. 
Imo  tanto  plus  accesit,  quanto  majus  est  subsistere  in 
Persona  Creatoris  quam  subsistentia  creaturae  {Scriptorum 
Theologicorum,  vol.  i.  p.  149).  The  last  thought  reminds 
one  of  the  sentiment  of  the  Lutheran  Hollaz,  who  enum- 
erates dvvno6zcx6ia  among  the  prerogatives  of  Christ's 
humanity,  and  speaks  of  the  want  of  human  personality  as 
I-*vina  filii  Dei  hypostasi  tanquam  longe  eminentiori  com.' 


3S6  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

pens  at  a.  Mastricht,  on  the  other  hand,  denies  personality 
in  every  sense  to  the  humanity.  He  speaks  of  the  human 
nature  as  id  quidem  omne  habens,  quod  ad  constitutionem 
nat.  hum.  est  necessarium,  eoque  nobis  quoad  naturam,  per 
omnia  similis,  solo  excepto  peccato,  sed  tamen  personali- 
tate,  per  quam  incommunicabilis  et  completa  fit  natura, 
penitus  destituta,  penitus  inquam,  hoc  est,  non  propria 
tantum  et  sibi  peculiari  quae  duplicem  inferat  personalitatem, 
sed participata  etiam  per  quam  kvvn66T<xzos  nonnullisdicitur, 
destituta;  quod  ea  ratione,  humana  natura  subsisteret  per- 
sonalitate  divina,  adeoque  humana  natura  persona  foret 
divina  {Theologia  Theoret.  Practica,  lib.  v.  c.  iv.  p.  538). 
Schneckenburger  suggests,  as  a  reason  for  the  exclusion 
of  natural  personality  from  the  human  nature  in  the  Re- 
formed theory,  that  such  personality  was  held  to  come 
within  the  scope  of  the  qualifying  clause  peccato  excepto,  on 
the  ground  that  no  self-consciousness  is  holy,  except  when 
absolutely  surrendered  to  the  guidance  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
For  this  notion,  however,  he  gives  no  citations.  This 
author  has  some  very  subtle  remarks  on  the  impersonalitas 
in  its  bearing  on  the  question  of  a  double  consciousness, 
which,  as  they  may  interest  some  minds,  I  here  translate. 
He  says  (Vergl.  Darstell.  ii.  p.  199):  "The  impersonality, 
strictly  considered,  is  but  the  highest  expression  for  what 
others  call  the  absolute  determination  of  the  human  nature 
by  the  Logos.  They  (the  defenders  of  impersonality)  say: 
Without  the  assumption  of  impersonality  there  would 
result  a  double  personality,  by  which  the  unity  of  self- 
consciousness  would  be  broken  up,  and  the  consequence 
would  be  no  real  Incarnation,  therefore,  after  all,  only  one 
personality,  that  of  the  Logos.  But  do  we  now  get,  on  the 
supposition  of  the  impersonality,  a  certain  double  person- 
ality in  the  Logos  ?  For  as  person  of  the  Trinity,  as  totus 
extra  Jesum,  He  is  conscious  of  Himself  after  another 
fashion  than  He  is  as  occultatus  natura  humana.  This  last 
divine-human  self-consciousness  is  not  the  full  comprehen- 
sive Logos-consciousness,  though  rooted  therein;  for  in 
that  case  the  world-embracing  Logos-consciousness  must 
have  extinguished  itself  pro  tempore,  which  (from  the 
Reformed  point  of  view)  is  impossible.     If,  therefore,  such 


Appendix. — Lecture  III. — Note  B.  387 

a  temporary  darkening  of  the  divine  self-consciousness  be 
inadmissible,  then  the  divine-human  self-consciousness  of 
the  Logos  occultatus  must  be  only  a  shadowy  time-image 
(abbildliche  zeitliche  Schattirung)  of  the  eternal,  absolute 
Trinitarian  Logos-consciousness,  resting  thereon  as  its 
foundation:  the  latter  must  embrace  the  former  as  the 
(ontinens  of  the  contention.  Therefore  the  impersonality  is 
not  to  be  taken  in  the  sense,  that  a  human  self-conscious- 
ness is  not  ascribed  to  Jesus.  Quite  opposed  to  this  con- 
struction is  the  scientia  habitualis,  which,  as  a  habitual 
knowledge  in  the  objective  sense,  presupposes  a  focus  ol 
habitual  self-consciousness,  whereby  alone  the  verus  et Justus 
homo  can  subsist.  The  scientia  personalis,  i.e.  the  omnisci- 
ence of  the  second  person  of  the  Trinity,  the  God-man  had 
only  potentially  (an  sich),  not  as  a  knowledge  really  per- 
vading and  thereby  annihilating  the  time-series  of  His 
inner  life  movement  (seiner  innern  Lebensmomente),  but 
the  Logos  self-consciousness  was  here  only  as  the  God- 
consciousness  of  the  human  self-consciousness,  and  so  the 
being  of  God  in  Him  was  the  light  image  of  the  eternal 
divine  self-consciousness  focusing  itself  in  His  human  soul 
(der  in  seine  menschliche  Seele  fallende  abbildliche  Strahl 
des  ewigen  gottlichen  Selbstbewusstseins).  The  whole 
normal  human  soul  of  Jesus  never  had  a  self-consciousness, 
nay,  not  even  a  moment  of  unconscious  vital  feeling  previous 
to  the  awakening  of  self-consciousness,  in  which  the  Logos 
had  not  an  absolutely  determining  influence  on  the  life- 
course,  so  that  this  person  never  stood  outside  the  relation 
to  the  Logos  as  the  determining  power;  that  relation  was 
for  Him  the  living  conscious  First  in  His  self-consciousness. 
Such  is  the  impersonalitas" 


LECTURE  IV. 

Note  A.— Page  145. 

To  the  Thomasian  type  of  kenosis  may  be  referred  Konig, 
Delitzsch,  and  Kahnis.  Konig  anticipated  Thomasius. 
The  statement  on  page  139  is  correct  only  in  the  sense  that 
Thomasius  was  the  first  to  present  the  kenotic  theory  in 
developed  form.  The  idea  had  been  propounded,  previous 
to  the  appearance  of  his  Beitrdge  in  1845,  by  K6nig  in  Die 
Menschiverdung  Gottes  ah  eine  in  Christus  geschehene,  unci 
in  der  christlichen  Kirche  nocJi  geschehende,  dargestellt, 
Mainz  1844.  Konig,  as  may  be  gathered  from  the  title  of 
his  book,  teaches  a  double  Incarnation,  one  of  the  Logos  in 
Christ,  and  one  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  Church  collectively. 
The  former  of  the  two  Incarnations  he  regards  from  the 
kenotic  point  of  view,  and  his  mode  of  presenting  the  doc- 
trine is  substantially  the  same  as  that  of  Thomasius.  The 
Logos  empties  Himself  of  omniscience  and  omnipotence  in 
assuming  human  nature  (in  its  integrity),  and  so  becomes  a 
divine-human  personality.  "  The  Scripture  calls  the  tran- 
sition of  the  Logos  out  of  the  infinitude  of  God  into  the 
finitude  of  human  existence  a  kevgo6is,  self-emptying,  or  liter- 
ally, self-void-making.  .  .  .  The  self-emptying  must,  with- 
out doubt,  be  conceived  in  accordance  with  the  words  of 
Christ  and  of  His  apostle,  as  a  true  emptying  of  self;  with 
the  entering  into  humanity,  and  in  its  gradual  development, 
and  from  its  first  beginnings,  the  \<lyoi  freely  subjected 
Himself,  in  the  fulness  of  His  infinite  love,  to  the  law  of  a 
human  gradual  development;  He  gave  up  the  glory,  bright- 
ness, and  majesty  which  He  had  with  the  Father  before 
the  foundation  of  the  world.  .  .  .  He  renounced  the  majesty 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  A.  389 

of  His  omniscience  as  such,  and  retained  it  only  as  a  com- 
pletely pure,  untroubled  conscience,  or  if  one  prefers  the 
word,  God-consciousness;  the  omnipotence  as  such  He  de- 
livered over  to  the  Father,  and  in  passing  into  humanity  He 
retained  the  decision  for  His  Father  and  His  will,  and  the 
impulse  to  do  this  will."  [  "  Den  Uebergang  des  Logos  aus 
der  Unendlichkeit  des  Gottes  in  die  Endlichkeit  des  Mensch- 
endaseins  bezeichnet  die  heilige  Schrift  als  eine  h£ygo6is; 
als  Selbstentausserung  oder  wortlich  Selbstleerung.  .  .  . 
Die  Selbstentausserung  muss  aber  ohne  Zvveifel  als  eine 
wahre  Entausserung  oder  Sich-Leermachung  ganz  dem 
Worte  Christi  und  seines  Apostels  gemass  gefasst  werden; 
mit  dem  Eintreten  in  die  Menschheit  und  in  deren  all- 
mahlige  Entwickelung,  und  zwar  von  ihren  ersten  Anfangen 
an,  unterwarf  sich  der  \6yos  in  der  Fiille  seiner  unendlichen 
Liebe  dem  Gesetze  menschlicher  allmahlige  Entwickelung 
freiwillig,  er  gab  die  Herrlichkeit,  Klarheit,  und  Majestat 
auf,  die  er  hatte  bei  dem  Vater  vor  Grundlegung  der 
Welt.  .  .  .  auf  die  Majestat  seiner  Allwissenheit  als  sol- 
cher  verzichtete  er,  und  behielt  sie  als  vollendet  reines 
ungetriibtes  Gewissen,  oder  wenn  man  lieber  will,  Gottes- 
bewusstsein;  die  Allmacht  als  solcher  iiberliess  er  dem 
Vater,  und  behielt,  in  die  Menschheit  ubergehend,  die 
Entschiedenheit  fur  seinen  Vater  und  dessen  Willen,  und 
den  Trieb,  diesen  Willen  zu  thun  "  (pp.  296-298).]  Again: 
"  The  kenosis  is  the  great  idea  by  which,  apprehended  in 
accordance  with  Scripture,  the  reality  of  a  true  Christology 
can  come  into  existence.  The  kenosis  contains  the  idea  of 
self-limitation  which  the  Logos  in  the  exercise  of  His  own 
will,  in  agreement  with  the  will  of  His  Father,  has  willed 
and  carried  into  effect.  .  .  .  This  limitation  was  possible 
only  by  God  Himself  in  the  Logos  subjecting  Himself  to 
the  process  of  mediation,  out  of  love,  yea,  out  of  infinite 
love  (to  sinful  humanity).  He  subjected  Himself  freely  to 
the  law  of  gradual  development."  ["  Die  k£vgd6is  ist  die 
grosse  Idee  durch  deren  offenbarung-  und  schriftgemasse 
Auffassung  die  Wirklichkeit  einer  wahren  Christologie  allein 
wird  zu  Stande  kommen.  Die  kenosis  enthalt  die  Idee  der 
Selbstverendlichung,  Selbstbeschrankung  die  vom  Ao>o5 
frei  aus  seinem  eigenen  dem  vaterlichen  entsprechenden 


390  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

Willen  und  Wesen  gewollt  und  gesetzt  wird.  .  .  .  Diese 
Verendlichung  war  gar  nicht  anders  moglich  als  dass  Gott 
selbst  im  Logos  dem  Prozess  der  Vermittlung  sich  unterwarf; 
aus  Liebe,  ja  aus  unendliche  Liebe  (to  sinful  humamty) 
unterzog  er  frei  sich  dem  Gezetze  allmahliger  Entwicklung  " 
(p.  338).]  To  the  objection  that  the  kenosis  violates  the 
unchangeableness  of  God,  Konig  replies,  that  God  the 
Logos,  by  submitting  to  the  kenosis  involved  in  Incarna- 
tion, showed  the  most  unconditional  love,  and  thereby 
asserted  and  maintained  His  inmost  essence  (p.  340).  On 
the  question  to  which  nature  the  personality  belongs,  he 
remarks  that  it  is  inept,  because  "  the  God-man  Jesus  is 
the  Logos  in  human  form;  when  He  thought  and  said  'I,' 
He  embraced  His  whole  divine-human  Being,  which  became 
divine-human  (or  theanthropic)  at  His  Incarnation.  .  .  . 
There  never  was  a  man  Jesus  apart  from  the  Logos;  but 
as  the  Logos,  before  He  became  in  Jesus  God-man,  pos- 
sessed personality,  one  can  freely  say  that  the  personality 
of  the  God-man  was  the  eternal  element  of  the  Logos, 
which,  however,  in  the  Incarnation  became  subject  to  the 
piocess  and  law  of  human  development,  gradual  in  time 
and  space,  and  of  course  as  personality  of  the  Logos  must 
cease  from  His  supernatural  form  of  existence  in  order  to 
become  the  personality  of  the  God-man,  in  a  natural  and 
historical  form  of  existence  "  [  "  der  Gottmensch  Jesus  ist 
der  Logos  in  Menschengestalt;  wenn  er  '  Ich  '  dachte  und 
sagte,  so  fasste  er  seine  ganzes  gottmenschliches  Wesen 
zusammen,  welches  als  Gottmenschliches  erst  mit  und  in 
seiner  Menschwerdung  geworden  oder  entstanden.  .  .  . 
Einen  Menschen  Jesus  ohne  den  Logos  hat  es  niemals 
gegeben;  da  aber  allerdings  der  Logos  ehe  er  in  Jesus 
Gottmensch  wurde  Personlichkeit  besass,  so  kann  man 
freilich  sagen  dass  die  Personlichkeit  des  Gottmenschen  die 
ewige  des  Logos  war,  die  aber  eben  mit  der  Menschwer- 
dung dem  Prozesse  und  Gesetze  der  menschlichen,  als 
zeitlichen  und  raumlichen  allmahligen  Entwickelung  sich 
unterwarf  und  natiirlicherweise  als  Personlichkeit  des  Lo- 
gos, in  seiner  ubernatiirlichen  Existenzform  aufhoren  musste, 
um  die  Personlichkeit  des  Gottmenschen  in  natiirlicher  und 
geschichtlicher  Existenzform  zu  werden "  (pp.  340,  341)]. 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  A.  391 

Konig  goes  on  to  argue  that  if  the  personality  of  the  Logos 
had  not  in  free  infinite  love  subjected  Himself  to  a  process 
of  gradual  human  development,  the  kenosis  would  not  have 
been  real,  the  human  and  divine  would  simply  have  been 
parallel  to  each  other.  He  regards  the  kenosis  as  an  ex- 
change of  the  divine  for  the  human  form  of  personality,  and 
does  not  allow  a  double  life  of  the  Logos.  I  have  thought 
it  right  to  give  this  account  of  Konig's  views,  all  the  more 
that  Thomasius,  so  far  as  I  have  observed,  takes  no  notice 
of  it,  though  he  gives  a  list  of  other  supporters  of  the 
kenotic  theory  {Person  tind  Werk,  ii.  p.  196). 

DELITZSCH  gives  his  opinion  on  the  kenotic  theory  in 
his  System  der  biblischen  Psychologies  pp.  326-333  (Zweite. 
Auflage,  1 86 1 ) .  He  says  that  it  is  one  of  the  greatest, 
holiest,  and  most  worthy  to  be  studied  problems  of  modern 
theology,  in  accordance  with  the  pervading  impression  of 
true  humanity  and  undivided  unity  which  the  person  of 
Christ  makes  as  set  forth  in  Scripture,  to  remove  the  self- 
contradictory  dualism,  above  which  the  Church  view  of 
the  God-man  has  not  been  able  to  raise  itself,  in  such 
a  way  that,  without  relapse  into  long  refuted  errors,  the 
substance  of  the  Catholic  dogma  may  remain  intact.  The 
right  solution,  he  indicates,  will  be  that  which  in  the  first 
place  holds  fast  the  gottlich-menschliche  Doppelwesen  of 
Christ,  without  assuming  a  transformation  of  the  divine 
nature  into  the  human,  in  contradiction  to  the  eternal, 
unchangeable  self-equality  (Selbstgleichheit)  of  God;  and,  in 
the  second  place,  which  allows  the  thesis,  that  the  Logos 
in  Christ  is  the  person-forming  and  the  humanity  the  as- 
sumed, to  remain  in  possession  of  its  scriptural  rights;  and 
thirdly,  which  succeeds  in  showing  how  the  Logos,  with- 
out ceasing  to  be  what  He  is  eternally,  could  make  Him- 
self the  subject  of  so  truly  human  a  being  as  meets  us 
everywhere  in  the  Christ  of  the  Gospels.  The  main  ques- 
tion is,  according  to  Delitzsch,  this:  "  How  could  the 
Logos  so  empty  Himself,  that  He  should  give  up  His  eternal 
glory,  and  yet  more,  His  eternal  mode  of  existence,  and 
the  properties  flowing  therefrom  in  relation  to  the  world, 
the  omnipotence,  the  omniscience,  the  omnipresence,  with- 
out   surrendering    the    identity    of  His    eternal    Being?" 


392  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

["  Wie  konnte  der  Logos  sich  so  entaussern  dass  er  seine 
ewige  Doxa  und  noch  mehr;  dass  er  seine  ewige  Seinsweise 
und  die  aus  ihr  der  Welt  gegeniiber  fliessenden  Eigen- 
schaften  der  Allmacht,  der  Allvvissenheit,  der  Allgegenwart 
aufgab,  ohne  doch  die  Identitat  seines  ewigen  Seins  aufzu- 
geben  "  (p.  327).]  The  fact,  he  says,  is  indubitable.  The 
incarnate  Logos  is  not  in  possession  of  the  eternal  doxa, 
for  He  desires  to  regain  it  (John  xvii.  5).  He  is  not  om- 
niscient, for  He  knows  not,  as  He  Himself  says,  the  day 
and  hour  of  the  end  (Mark  xiii.  32).  He  is  not  almighty, 
for  power  over  all,  as  the  risen  One  says,  is  given  unto  Him 
(Matt,  xxviii.  18).  He  is  not  omnipresent,  since  He  is 
ascended  in  order  to  fill  all  (Eph.  iv.  10).  To  refer  these 
expressions  to  the  humanity  alone,  is  to  sever  the  unity 
of  the  person,  and  turn  the  reality  of  the  human  nature 
into  a  sham.  The  only  question  is,  How  is  the  fact  to  be 
accounted  for  ?  How  could  the  Logos  give  up  His  eternal 
glory,  and  these  attributes  of  His  divine  manner  of  being, 
without  parting  with  His  divine  nature,  whose  effulgence 
that  glory  is,  and  whose  energy  those  attributes  are  ?  The 
solution,  according  to  our  author,  is  to  be  found  in  this, 
that  the  essence  of  absolute  personality  consists  in  unlim- 
ited self-determination,  and  that  the  root  of  the  divine 
Being  is  will,  which  is  the  prius  of  all  actual  self-conscious- 
ness. The  Son  of  God  could  thus  without  renouncing  His 
being  "  withdraw  to  this  lowest  basis,  this  root-power,  this 
all-determining  ground  and  origin  of  His  Being,  and  so 
with  the  emptying  of  His  unfolded  Being  make  Himself 
the  subject  of  a  human  personality,  and  become  objective  to 
Himself  in  a  new  up-springing  self-consciousness,  which, 
although  it  has  His  now  double  existence  for  contents,  yet 
is  no  double  consciousness,  but  a  single  one  springing  out 
of  a  single  divine-human  life  ground  "  ["  auf  diese  unterste 
Basis,  diese  wurtzelhafte  Potenz,  diesen  alles  beschlies- 
senden  Grund  und  Ursprung  seines  Wesens  zuriickziehen 
und  so  mit  Entausserung  seiner  Wesensentfaltung  sich  zum 
Subjecte  einer  menschlichen  Personlichkeit  machen,  und 
sich  selbst  in  einem  neu  aufgehenden  Selbstbewusstsein 
gegenstandlich  werden,  welches,  obgleich  es  sein  nunmch- 
riges  Doppelwesen  zum  Inhalt  hat,   doch  kein  doppeltes, 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  A.  393 

sondern  ein  aus  einheitlichem  gottmenschlichen  Lebens- 
grunde  aufgehendes  einiges  ist  "  (p.  328)].  Such  self-reduc- 
tion involves  no  interference  with  the  immanent  trinitarian 
process,  because  "  the  Son  remained  even  in  that  with- 
drawal or  systole  of  His  unfolded  Being  in  which  the 
kenosis  lay,  the  other  divine  will,  in  which  the  original  will 
of  the  Father  mirrors  itself,  and  which  has  the  fulness  of 
the  Father's  Being  for  its  contents  "  ["  der  Sohn  blieb  auch 
in  jener  Einzehung  und,  so  zu  sagen,  Systole  seiner  Wesens- 
entfaltung  worin  die  Entausserung  besteht,  der  andere 
gottliche  Wille,  in  welchem  der  urbildliche  Wille  des  Va- 
ters  sich  spiegelt,  und  welcher  die  Wesensfulle  des  Vaters 
zu  seinem  bewegenden  Inhalt  hat "  (p.  329)].  Neither 
does  it  involve  any  suspension  of  the  world-preserving  and 
governing  activity  of  the  Trinity,  because  in  "  the  self- 
emptying  of  the  Son  realizes  itself  the  eternal  will  of  love 
of  the  triune  God,  and  therewith  His  own  eternal  will  " 
["  in  der  Selbstentausserung  des  Sohnes  verwirklicht  sich 
ja  der  ewige  Liebeswille  Gottes  des  dreieinigen,  und  somit 
sein  eigener  ewiger  Will  "  {ibid.)'].  Redemption  is  the 
centre  of  the  upholding  and  governing  of  the  world,  there- 
fore "  so  far  from  any  blank  entering  into  the  world- 
sustaining,  world-governing  activity  of  the  triune  God,  that 
activity  rather  concentrated  itself  centripetally  in  the  self- 
emptying  of  the  Son,  and  had  therein  its  centre  of  gravity, 
without  wholly  resolving  itself  thereinto  "  ["  Kam  in  die 
welterhaltende  und  weltregierende  Thatigkeit  des  dreiein- 
igen Gottes  so  wenig  eine  Liicke,  dass  sie  sich  viel  mehr  in 
dieser  Selbstentausserung  des  Sohnes,  ohne  darin  aufzu- 
gehen,  gleichsam  centripetalkraftig  zusammenfasste  und 
daran  ihren  Schwerpunkt  hatte  "  (ibid.)];  so  that  the  ipspoov 
zccTiavza  (Heb.  i.  1)  retained  its  truth,  "even  as  the  hu- 
man spirit  in  the  bonds  of  sleep,  not  less  than  in  the  full 
stir  of  waking  hours,  without  interruption  of  its  self-iden- 
tical life,  continues  through  the  soul  to  be  the  life-power 
which  dominates  the  body.  The  self-emptying  of  the  Son, 
and  His  theanthropic  suffering  unto  death  connected  there- 
with is,  rightly  viewed,  the  most  strongly  willed,  most 
powerful,  most  intensive  self-assertion;  in  this  self-empty- 
ing culminates  the  free  self-might  of  the  everlasting  Son, 


394  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

and  concentrates  itself  in  the  eternal  love  which  wills  and 
carries  through  the  completion  of  the  world;  its  effects  ex- 
tend not  only  over  the  whole  of  humanity,  but  over  heaven 
and  earth  "  ["  ahnlich  wie  der  menschliche  Geist  in  der  Ge- 
bundenheit  des  Schlafes  nicht  minder,  als  in  der  vollen  Reg- 
samkeit  des  Wachens,  ohne  Abbruch  seines  selbstgleichen 
Lebens  mittelst  der  Seele  die  den  Leib  durchwaltende 
Lebensmacht  zu  sein  fortfahrt.  Die  Selbstentausserung 
des  Sohnes  und  sein  damit  verbundenes  gottmenschliches 
Leiden  bis  zum  Tode  ist  ja,  recht  besehen,  die  willens- 
starkste  thatkraftigste  allerintensivste  Selbstbethatigung; 
in  dieser  Selbstentausserung  gipfelt  die  freie  Selbstmacht 
des  ewigen  Sohnes  und  concentrirt  sich  die  der  Welt  Vol- 
lendung  wollende  und  durchsetzende  ewige  Liebe:  ihre 
Wirkungen  erstrecken  sich  nicht  allein  auf  die  ganze  Mensch- 
heit,  sondern  auf  Himmel  und  Erde  "  (p.  330)].  The  view 
here  given  of  the  continued  participation  by  the  self- 
emptied  Logos  in  the  government  of  the  world,  taught 
also  by  Hofmann  (see  next  note),  is  quite  compatible  with 
the  Thomasian  theory  of  depotentiation.  It  is  physical 
power  replaced  by  moral;  strength  perfected  in  weakness. 
From  the  above  it  will  be  seen  that  Delitzsch  does  not  hold 
that  the  Logos  superseded  the  human  soul;  and  he  takes 
care,  with  express  reference  to  Gess,  to  repudiate  this 
view. 

KAHNIS  declares  for  the  kenotic  theory  of  Christ's  per- 
son in  Die  LeJire  heiligen  Geiste,  pp.  57,  58.  He  starts  from 
the  difficult  question,  How  in  Christ  the  relation  of  the 
divine  consciousness  to  the  human  is  to  be  conceived  ?  On 
the  Church  doctrine  of  two  natures  in  one  person,  the  per- 
sonality belonging  to  the  divine  nature,  and  the  human 
nature  being  by  consequence  impersonal,  he  remarks,  that 
as  the  essence  of  humanity  lies  in  consciousness,  Christ 
without  a  human  Ego  is  not  complete  man;  further,  that 
human  thought,  will,  and  feeling  are  not  conceivable  with- 
out a  human  self-consciousness;  and  finally,  that  the  cer- 
tain fact  of  the  gradual  development  of  Jesus  is  reduced  to 
seeming,  if  the  Ego,  which  grows  in  wisdom,  is  at  the  same 
time  wisdom  itself;  if  the  Ego,  which  grows  in  grace,  is  at 
the    same  time  the  source  of  grace.     The  human  nature 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  A.  395 

imperatively  demands  a  human  person.     But  as  the  divine 
Ego  nevertheless  stands  fast,  the  only  outlet  seems  two 
persons.     This  solution,  however,  has  ever  been  rejected, 
and  justly,  for  it  reduces  the  whole  life  of  Jesus  to  a  lie, 
because  in  such  a  relation  (a  sort  of  possession)  the  Son  of 
God  is  not  man,  nor  is  the  man  Son  of  God,  and  either 
person,    in   appropriating    the    properties    of  the    other,  is 
guilty  of  taking  what  does  not  belong  to  it.     (Uebergriffe 
machte,    die  gottliche  des  Scheines,  die  menschliche  des 
Raubes.)     There  must  be  but  one  person.     This  one  per- 
son could  unite  the  two   natures  only  by  being  finite  and 
infinite  at  the  same  time.     The  human  self-consciousness, 
which  is  not  an  immoveable  point,  but  in  all  life-relations 
is  diversely  shaped,  sensuous,  understanding,  rational,  re- 
ligious, etc.,  consciousness  (sinnliches,  verstandiges,  ver- 
nunftiges,    religioses    u.    s.    w.    Bewusstsein),    presents    an 
analogy  for  the  assumption  in  Christ  of  a  self-consciousness 
which  belongs  at  once  to  both  natures.     When  Christ  is 
tempted,  weeps,  trembles  in  the  garden,  feels  Himself  God- 
forsaken,   His    Ego   enters    wholly   into   human    finitude; 
when  He  names  Himself  the  resurrection  and  the  life,  is 
transfigured,  when  He  desires  the  glory  which  He  had  with 
the    Father,    the  divine  consciousness  dominates  over  all 
finite  relations.     The  forthcoming  of  the  one  does  not  ex- 
clude the  other,  but  it  demands  a  retirement  of  it,  yet  with- 
out sin  in  the  human  (doch  ohne  Sunde  beim  menschlichen). 
John's  word,  "  The  Word  became  flesh,"  does  not  signify 
an  assumption  of,  but  a  transition  into,  human  nature  (ein 
Annehmen  oder  Anziehen  der  menschlichen  Natur,  son- 
dern  ein  Uebergehen  in  dieselbe);  demands  therefore  that 
the  Logos  consciousness  should  become  human  (dass  das 
unendliche    Logosbewusstsein    ein    endlich    menschliches 
geworden  sei).     The  Logos  consciousness  therefore  must 
be  conceived  of,  during  the  infancy  of  Jesus,  as  latent  in 
the  human,  and  with  the  progressive  human  development 
out  of  the  religious  relation   (aus  dem  religiosen  Verhalt- 
nisse),  growing  into  a  consciousness  of  a  peculiar  child- 
hood  (als  Bewusstsein  einer  besonderen   Kindschaft),  till 
in  maturity  Jesus  assumed  the  divine  life  which  the  human 
Ego  has  as  grace,  as  the  nature  of  His  Ego  (das  gottliche 


396  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

Leben  welches  das  menschliche  Ich  als  Gnade  hat,  ala 
Natur  seines  Ich  aufnahm).  Therefore,  while  the  Church 
doctrine  rightly  derives  the  self-consciousness  of  Christ, 
not  from  the  human  nature,  but  from  the  Logos  nature,  it 
must  take  the  additional  step  of  assuming  a  becoming  finite 
on  the  part  of  the  Logos  consciousness,  in  order  to  gain  for 
the  human  nature  a  human  consciousness  ("  eine  Verend- 
lichung  des  Logosbewusstsein  anzunehmen,  um  fur  die  men- 
schliche Natur  ein  menschlich  Bewusstsein  zu  gewinnen  "). 
Kahnis  proceeds  to  make  some  remarks  on  the  assertion 
of  the  negative  critics,  that  in  the  Christ  of  the  synoptical 
Gospels  the  Divine  is  the  Holy  Ghost,  while  in  John  it  is 
the  Logos.  He  denies  the  accuracy  of  the  statement,  and 
maintains  that  the  Logos  in  fact,  though  not  in  word,  is 
recognised  in  the  Synoptics,  and  that  the  influence  of  the 
Holy  Ghost  is  recognised  in  John.  The  need  for  that  in- 
fluence is  explained  by  the  effect  of  the  Incarnation  on  the 
Logos.  In  becoming  flesh  the  Logos  became  subject  to 
the  laws  of  the  flesh,  therefore  needed  to  be  protected  by 
the  Spirit  from  taint  in  His  human  nature,  so  that  He 
might  be  born  free  from  sin.  As  a  citizen  of  the  divine 
kingdom,  He  needed  the  Spirit  to  consecrate  Him  to  be 
Messias.  As  perfect  man,  He  required  to  have,  not  sim- 
ply a  finite  Ego,  but  a  life  for  the  infinite  in  which  all 
religion  consists.  This  infinite  life,  for  which  the  finite  Ego 
exists,  dwelt  in  Him  from  the  conception  as  Holy  Spirit. 
Out  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  who  pervaded  the  human  nature 
more  and  more,  the  lost  glory  of  the  Logos  came  into  con- 
sciousness, somewhat  as  Plato  conceives  of  all  spirit-life  as 
a  recollection.  If  we  are  to  believe  in  an  intimate  mutual 
pervasion  of  the  divine  and  human  natures  in  Christ,  the 
intermediate  link  must  be  found  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  who 
condescends  to  finitude  and  weakness  in  order  to  form  it 
into  the  divine  image. 

Note  B. — Page  153. 

To  the  Gessian  type  may  be  referred  Gaupp,  Hahn, 
Schmieder,  Reuss,  Godet,  and  (but  with  hesitation)  Liebner 
and  Hofmann,  also  Goodwin,  an  American  theologian. 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  B.  397 

Gaupp  {Die  Union,  Breslau  1847,  PP-  1 12— 1 17)  finds  the 
solution  of  the  problem  of  the  Incarnation,  the  union  of  the 
divine  and  human  natures  in  one  person,  in  the  idea  of  the 
self-exinanition  of  the  Logos,  and  the  trichotomy  of  human 
nature  into  body,  soul,  and  spirit;  the  Logos,  by  a  voluntary 
kenosis,  constituting  Himself  a  human  spirit,  and  assuming 
a  soul  and  body,  and  thus  subjecting  Himself  to  a  purely 
human  development.  "  Happily  the  idea  of  the  kenosis 
comes  to  our  aid,  and  under  the  assumption  of  the  biblical 
trichotomy  of  spirit,  soul,  and  body,  in  the  one  human  in- 
dividual, makes  a  conception  of  the  Incarnation  of  the 
Logos  possible,  according  to  which  the  Logos,  by  that  act 
of  infinite  love,  could  constitute  Himself  into  a  human 
spirit,  assume  soul  and  body  in  His  conception  through  the 
Holy  Ghost  in  the  virgin's  womb,  and  so  subject  Him- 
self to  a  purely  human  development."  ["  Da  kommt  uns 
gliicklicherweise  die  Idee  der  Selbstentausserung  des  Sohnes 
Gottes  zu  Hiilfe,  und  macht,  unter  Voraussetzung  der 
biblischen  Trichotomie  von  Geist,  Seele,  und  Leib,  in  dem 
einen  Menschen-Individuum,  eine  Auffassung  der  Incarna- 
tion des  Logos  moglich;  nach  welcher  dieser,  mittelst 
jener  unendlich  liebreichen  Entausserungsthat,  sich  selbst 
zum  Menschengeiste  konstituiren,  Seele  und  Leib  bei  seiner 
geheimnissvollen  Empfangniss  durch  den  heiligen  Geist 
im  Liebe  der  Jungfrau  von  aussen  annehmen  und  hiermit 
einer  rein  menschlichen  Entwickelung  sich  unterziehen 
konnte  "  (p.  113).]  The  kenosis  Gaupp,  like  Gess,  bases 
on  a  Subordinatian  view  of  the  Trinity.  The  Son  has  His 
eternal  life  from  the  Father,  who  alone  is  the  original 
ground  {Urgrund)  of  all  being,  and  therefore  can  declare, 
not  merely  with  reference  to  His  humanity,  but  with  refer- 
ence to  His  divine  nature,  "The  Father  is  greater  than  I." 
The  Son,  therefore,  unlike  the  Father,  is  capable  of  self- 
exinanition;  He  can,  so  to  speak,  estrange  Himself  from 
His  own  divine  nature,  and  divest  Himself  of  His  bright- 
ness and  majesty,  and  all  divine  properties,  depositing 
them,  so  to  speak,  with  the  Father,  that  He  may  be  wholly 
man,  and  be  subject  to  the  law  of  growth  as  a  child, 
knowing  no  more  of  Himself  than  other  children,  and  attain- 
ing only  gradually  to  His  human  self-consciousness,  and 


39S  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

meriting  by  a  life  of  obedience  the  restitution  of  the  glory 
He  had  voluntarily  abnegated.  To  Christ,  in  the  state  of 
humiliation,  Gaupp  ascribes  a  moral  likeness  to  God,  due 
to  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  communicating  to  Him 
gradually  divine  properties;  the  natural  properties  of  God- 
head, omnipotence,  omniscience,  and  omnipresence  he  repre- 
sents Christ  as  attaining  only  in  the  state  of  exaltation, 
and  even  then  only  in  the  relativity  which  the  idea  of  human 
nature  demands  (in  derjenigen  Relativitat  die  die  Idee 
der  Menschennatur  erfordert,  d.  h.  in  den  Ring  der  Mensch- 
heit  gefasst,  p.  1 16).  To  the  glorified  body  of  Christ,  Gaupp 
ascribes  circumscribedness;  yet  he  thinks  that  from  the 
humanity  of  the  glorified  Son  a  sphere  of  power  rays  forth 
pervading  all  space,  after  the  analogy  of  the  sensible  at- 
mosphere which  some  anthropologists,  as  he  thinks  rightly, 
ascribe  even  to  men  living  on  earth,  in  order  thereby  to 
solve  certain  riddles  of  human  nature. 

Hahn  {Die  Theologie  des  Nenen  Testaments,  Leipzig  1854, 
Erster  Band,  pp.  195-210)  takes  a  similar  view  of  the 
constitution  of  Christ's  person,  the  Logos  taking  therein, 
according  to  him,  the  place  of  the  human  spirit.  The 
change  of  condition  which  the  Son  of  God  underwent  in 
becoming  man  had  a  positive  and  a  negative  side;  He 
assumed  something,  and  He  gave  away  something.  What 
He  assumed  was  the  <5dpl,  that  is,  the  material,  human 
corporeality,  and  the  condition  which  goes  along  therewith 
("  die  materielle  menschliche  Lciblichkeit  und  der  mit  dieser 
verbundene  Zustand  ").  What  He  gave  up  was  the  condi- 
tion of  His  premundane  absoluteness  (seiner  vorweltlichen 
Absolutheit).  The  son  of  God  entered  into  the  flesh 
emptied  of  all  His  divine  prerogatives,  in  a  state  of  limita- 
tion corresponding  to  the  human  tidp'i,  retaining,  indeed,  the 
essence  of  Godhead,  but  reduced  to  a  potence,  in  which 
the  divine  majesty  lay  only  as  a  germ.  ["  Das  absolute 
itvEvna  ist  zum  beschrankten  icvevfia  eines  sinnlichen  Men- 
schen  geworden,  es  hat  sich  bis  zu  dem  Grade  der  Keim- 
artigkeit,  beschrankt,  dass  es  gleich  geworden  ist  dem  noch 
unentwickelten  itvEvua  jedes  Menschen  im  Momente  seiner 
Entstehung,  so  dass  alles  gottliche  Bewusstsein  und  alle 
gottliche  Krafte  in  ihm  vollig  gebunden  waren,  und  erst 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  B.  399 

der  Entwickelung  bedurften,  wenn  er  sich  als  Sohn  Gottes 
manifestiren  sollte,  und  als  solches  beschranktes  itvsvjua  ist 
er  in  die  tidp%  eingegangen  "  (p.  199).]     This  truth  is  most 
plainly  expressed  in  the  words  6  y6\os  6dpi  kye'vero,  which 
mean,  not    merely  that    the  Logos   appeared  in  the  flesh 
(eqxxvepGjQji  kv  6apui,  I  Tim.  iii.  16),  but    that  in    His   con- 
sciousness and  spiritual  power  He  entered  into  the  limits 
of  a  sensuous  existence  ("  dass  er  ganz  und  gar  zu  einem 
fleischlichen  d.  h.  sinnlichen  Wesen  geworden  sei  ")  (p.  200). 
In    thus    limiting  Himself  to  the  dimensions  of  a  human 
spirit,  and  uniting  Himself  as  a  human    spirit  to   human 
flesh,  the    Son    of  God   became  a   full  and  true  man,  foi 
human  nature  consists  of  two  parts,  6dp%  and  nvevfia.     Yet 
three   things   distinguished  Christ  from  all  other  men:   1. 
His   supernatural    birth;    2.  His  spirit,  while   human,  was 
yet  not  of  temporal  origin,  like  that  of  other  men,  except 
indeed  as  to  form  of  being,  but  in  its  essence  was  eternal 
at&viov;  and,  moreover,  it  was  a  nvsv/ia  in  which  dwelt  in 
germ    the  fulness  of  Godhead.     The  former   attribute    of 
Christ's  spirit  the  author  finds  attested  in  such  passages  as 
Heb.  ix.  14  {did  nvevf-iazoi  atooviov),  I  Tim.  iii.  l6  {kcpavepajQij 
Iv  dapui),     I     John     iv.    2     {kv  dapui  kyr}\vS6za),     Heb.    ii.     14 
{kexoiv oovrjKEv  a'ifiaroz  xai  dapno?)',    the    expressions    quoted 
showing  that,  according  to  the  view  of  the  N.  T.,  the  In- 
carnation of  the  Son  of  God  did  not  consist  in  His  assuming 
an  entire  human  nature  consisting  of  body  and  soul,  but  in 
this,  that    He    assumed  a  human  body  ["  dass  der  schon 
vorhandene    (praexistirende)   Geiste   Christi   (natiirlich    in 
einem  Ziistande  der  Beschrankung)  in  einen  menschlichen 
Leib   eingegangen    sei"    (p.  206)].     The    third  distinctive 
feature  of  Christ's    humanity   is   its   sinlessness,    which    is 
explained  by  the  fact  that  His  spirit  was  not  derived  from 
sinful  humanity,  was  therefore  pure  and  strong,  and  could 
keep  the  6ap%  in  its  own  place,  though  from  its  nature  the 
latter  supplied- material  for  temptation,  especially  as  it  was 
reinforced  by  the  power  emanating  from  the  close  connection 
in  which  He  stood  to  His  heavenly  Father.     ["  Ein  Princip 
(die  ddpc)  von  dem  zwar  Vesuchungen  ausgingen,  die  aber 
Jesus,  vermoge  des  Lebens  seines  nvEvua,  und  vermoge  def 
unmittelbaren    Verbindung,    in    welcher    er    mit    seincm 


400  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

himmlischen  Vater  stand,  und  der  von  diesem  ausgehenden 
Kraftigung  stark  genug  war,  in  jedem  Momente  zu 
uberwinden  "  (p.  210).] 

Schmieder  {Das  hohcpricstcrlichc  Gcbet  unsers  Herrti 
Jcsu  C/iristi,  Hamburg  1848)  expresses  his  view  in  these 
terms  (pp.  36-42):  "  The  Son  of  God  became  man;  that  is. 
He  renounced  His  self-conscious  divine  personal  being  and 
took  the  form  of  a  spiritual  potence,  which  self-forgotten, 
as  unconscious  formative  power  worked  in  the  womb  of 
Mary,  and  formed  a  body  which  was  fitted  so  to  serve  the 
development  of  this  spiritual  potence  that  it  could  use  it  as 
its  own  property  and  become  conscious,  could  develop 
itself  therein,  and  by  means  thereof  put  forth  its  energy. 
The  spiritual  power  works  in  the  beginnings  of  the  forma- 
tion of  the  body  simply  on  nature,  as  unconscious  force, 
later  in  the  body  as  spiritual  nature,  as  soul,  which  becomes 
conscious  of  its  sensations  and  conceptions,  and  self-active, 
but  does  not  yet  with  full  self-consciousness  react  against 
it;  lastly,  in  the  soul  or  spirit  as  self-conscious,  self-deter- 
mining, self-activity.  The  spirit  is  the  first  and  the  last;  it 
forms  the  body,  it  moves  the  soul,  but  it  can  be  named 
spirit  properly  only  when  it  has  come  to  itself,  when  it 
knows  its  power,  and  fully  wields  it."  ["  Der  Sohn  Gottes 
ward  Mensch:  das  heisst,  er  begab  sich  seines  selbstbe- 
wussten  gottlichen  Personseyns  und  nahm  die  Gestalt  eines 
geistigen  Vermogens  an,  das  selbstvergessen  als  bewusstlose 
bildende  Kraft  im  Eingeweide  der  Maria  wirkt  und  aus  den 
belebten  Saften  einer  menschlichen  Mutter  einen  Leib 
bildet,  der  geeignet  ist,  der  Entwickelung  dieses  bestimmten 
geistigen  Vermogens  so  zu  dienen,  dass  dasselbe  sich 
dessen  als  seines  zugehorigen  Eigenthums  bedienen  und 
bewusst  werden,  sich  selbst  darin  und  mittelst  desselben 
selbstthatig  entwickeln  kann.  Das  geistige  Vermogen 
wirkt  in  den  Anfangen  der  Leibbildung  bloss  als  Natur,  als 
bewusstloses  Vermogen,  spater  in  dem  Leibe  als  geistige 
Natur,  als  Seele,  die  sich  ihrer  Empfindungen  und  Vorstel- 
lungen  bewusst  wird  und  selbstthatig,  aber  noch  nicht 
vollig  selbstbewusst  dagegen  zuriickwirkt,  endlich  in  der 
Seele  als  Geist,  als  selbstbewusst  sich  selbst  bestimmende 
Selbstthatigkeit.     Der  Geist  ist  das  Erste  und  das  Letste; 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  B.  401 

er  bildet  den  Leib,  er  bewegt  die  Seele;  aber  Geist  verdient 
er  erst  genannt  zu  werden,  wenn  er  zu  sich  selbst  gekom- 
men  ist,  wenn  er  sein  Vermogen  erkennt  und  frei  daruber 
schaltet  "  (p.  38).]  The  Logos  becomes  an  unconscious 
power,  producing  a  body  in  the  Virgin,  working  first  as 
nature,  then  in  the  formed  body  as  soul,  then  in  the  soul 
as  spirit  self-conscious  and  self-determining.  Jesus  on 
earth  was,  according  to  this  author,  the  divine  genius  of 
the  human  race,  knowing  Himself  to  be  the  same  person  as 
before  the  kenosis,  but  taking  up  into  His  self-conscious- 
ness the  body  with  its  sensitive  soul  (empfindende  Seele), 
and  using  this  animated  body  as  the  servant  of  His  divine 
spirit,  till,  in  the  state  of  exaltation,  body  and  soul  become 
spiritualized  (nvev/uariHov),  when  Christ  is  no  longer  simply 
a  divine  genius,  but  the  God  of  humanity  in  constant 
fellowship  with  the  Father. 

REUSS  (Histoire  de  la  The'ologie  Chre'tienne  ait  Steele  Apos- 
tolique,  1864),  speaking  of  the  Pauline  view  of  Christ's 
person,  indicates  briefly  his  opinion  as  to  the  meaning  of 
the  passage  in  Phil,  ii.,  in  these  terms:  "  II  est  dit  expres- 
sement  que  l'element  divin  est  l'essentiel;  l'element  humain, 
quelque  chose  d'adopte,  d'ajoute,  d'exterieur.  Cela  im- 
plique  l'idee  d'un  abaissement,  d'une  espece  de  privation, 
d'un  depouillement,  et  nous  conduit  directement  a  nous 
representer  l'union  des  deux  natures  comme  l'alliance  d'un 
esprit  divin  avec  un  corps  humain,  explication  qui  se  re- 
commande  par  sa  simplicite  meme;  mais  qui  n'a  jamais  ete 
du  gout  des  theologiens.  II  est  vrai  qu'elle  n'est  pas  ainsi 
formulee  dans  les  textes,  mais  ceux-ci  ne  contiennent  pas 
un  mot  qui  lui  soit  contraire  "  (vol.  ii.  p.  71).  That  is  to 
say,  the  most  natural  construction  of  the  apostle's  state- 
ment is  to  find  in  it  Gess's  theory  of  the  kenosis,  the  Logos, 
as  a  human  soul,  assuming  a  human  body.  On  the  other 
hand,  Reuss  finds  no  trace  of  a  status  exinanitionis  in  John's 
writings.  The  Incarnation  for  John  is  not  a  humiliation, 
but  a  glorification — even  in  His  death  the  Son  of  man  is 
glorified;  and  this  idea  is  held  to  be  quite  incompatible 
with  the  scholastic  view,  according  to  which  Christ's  death 
was  the  lowest  degree  of  abasement.  This  is  very  super- 
ficial theology  (see  tome  ii.  p.  455). 


402  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

GODET  {Comment aire  sur  VEvangile  de  Saint  Jean,  Paris- 
1864)  expresses  the  opinion  that  the  Church  doctrine  of 
the  two  natures  does  not  perfectly  set  forth  the  sense  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  that  both  Reformed  and  Lutheran  theories 
fail  to  solve  the  problem  of  reconciling  the  real  humanity 
with  the  pre-existence,  and  says  that  the  Scriptures  do  not 
teach  the  presence  of  the  divine  nature  with  its  divine  at- 
tributes in  Jesus  on  earth.  The  expression  in  John  i.  14 
conveys  the  idea  of  a  divine  subject  reduced  to  a  human 
state,  but  not  of  two  states,  divine  and  human,  co-existing. 
Paul  teaches  the  same  idea  in  Phil.  ii.  6.  The  words  of  the 
apostle  {Ih£vqo6z,  etc.)  can  only  mean,  "  qu'il  a  depose  son 
etat  divin  pour  prendre  l'etat  humain;  il  ne  les  a  done  pas 
combines  en  s'incarnant,  mais  il  a  echange  celui-la  pour 
celui-ci."  The  glory  referred  to  in  John  xvii.  is  "  l'etat 
divin  avec  tous  ses  attributs,  sa  forme  de  Dieu,  selon  l'ex- 
pression  de  Saint  Paul,  dont  il  s'etait  depouille  en  se  faisant 
homme."  This  self-exinanition  implies,  to  begin  with,  the 
loss  of  self-consciousness.  "II  faut  ensuite  que  le  sujet 
divin  consente  a  perdre  pour  un  temps  la  conscience  de  lui- 
meme,  comme  tel.  La  conscience  d'une  relation  si  par- 
ticuliere  avec  Dieu  et  le  souvenir  d'une  vie  anterieure  a 
cette  existence  terrestre  seraient  incompatibles  avec  l'etat 
d'une  veritable  enfant  et  avec  un  developpement  reellement 
humain."  But  at  His  baptism  Jesus  at  length  attained  to 
the  consciousness  of  His  being  the  Logos.  His  ministry 
required  this,  because  "pour  temoigner  de  lui  meme,  il  doit 
se  connaitre."  This  self-consciousness,  however,  did  not 
restore  the  divine  state,  the  form  of  God.  He  had  the  use 
of  the  treasures  of  wisdom  and  power  which  are  in  God. 
But  He  possessed  nothing.  He  could  therefore  say:  "  Pere 
rends-moi  ma  gloire."  After  the  ascension  He  regained 
His  divine  state.  "  Des  ce  moment  il  est  mis  en  posses- 
sion, et  cela  comme  Fils  de  l'homme,  de  tous  les  attributs 
divins,  de  l'etat  de  Fils  de  Dieu,  tel  qu'il  le  possedait  avant 
son  Incarnation:  Tonte  la  plenitude  de  la  divinite'  habite 
CORPORELLEMENT  en  lui"  (Col.  ii.  9).  Godet  refers  to 
Gess,  and  expresses  his  general  agreement  with  the  view 
presented  by  the  latter:  "  dans  son  bel  ouvrage  (Lehre  von 
der  Person  Chris ti,   1856)  dont  (he  adds)  j'ai  eu  l'honneur 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  B.  403 

de  rendre  compte  a  1'epoque  de  son  apparition,"  Revue  dire"' 
tienne,  1857-58.  (See  Comment  aire,  tome  premier,  247-265.) 
LlEBNER  (Christologie  oder  die  christologische  EinJieii 
des  dogmatischen  Systems  dargestellt,  Erste  Abtheilung  [all 
that  has  appeared],  Gottingen  1849)  mav  be  classed  under 
the  Gessian  type,  because,  so  far  as  appears,  he  does  not 
recognise  any  human  soul  in  Christ  distinct  from  the  Logos, 
and  because  he  teaches  a  Subordinatian  view  of  the  Trinity 
as  the  foundation  of  an  absolute  kenosis  of  the  Son,  whereby 
He  empties  Himself  of  divine  contents,  and  becomes,  as  it 
were,  a  mere  form  or  empty  vessel  to  be  re-filled  by  a 
process  of  human  development.  Liebner's  speculations, 
Trinitarian  and  Christological,  while  extremely  interesting 
and  suggestive,  are  rather  abstruse;  but  the  following 
sketch,  it  is  hoped,  may  afford  a  clear  and  sufficient  outline 
of  his  system.  The  doctrine  of  the  Trinity  is  based  on  the 
idea  of  personality,  which  is  not  a  solitary,  but  a  social 
thing.  Not  merely  self-assertion  over  against  another,  as 
conceived  by  Strauss  and  Fichte  and  many  modern  philos- 
ophers, but — and  this  is  the  positive  moment — it  is  reach- 
ing beyond  self,  including  another,  and  allowing  itself  to 
be  included,  in  a  word,  love  (not  mere  "  Selbstheit  gegen 
Anderes,  Fiirsichsein  gegen  Anderes,  Anderes  von  sich 
Ausschliessen,"  but  "das  iiber  sich  Uebergreifende,  das 
Andere  Einschliessende,  und  sich  Einschliessenlassende, 
und  das  ist  die  Liebe,"  p.  115).  The  Trinitarian  process 
turns  upon  the  nature  of  love  as  self-communication.  God 
wills  to  realize  Himself  as  absolute  love,  or,  what  is  the 
same  thing,  to  be  real  absolute  personality;  hence  the  ten- 
dency to  transpose  Himself,  as  it  were  to  lose  Himself  in 
His  own  Other — God  the  Son.  But  this  second,  in  order 
to  realize  Himself  in  turn  as  love,  tends  to  lose  Himself 
again  in  the  first  as  His  absolute  object.  Thus,  on  the  one 
side,  God  the  Father  goes  forth  from  Himself,  and  posits 
the  Son,  transposes  Himself  into  the  latter,  makes  Him- 
self, after  the  nature  of  love,  dependent  with  respect  to  the 
Son,  empties  Himself  into  the  Son.  On  the  other,  side  the 
Son,  moved  by  the  same  impulse,  makes  Himself  in  turn 
dependent  on  the  Father,  empties  Himself  into  the  Father. 
But  as  this  process  of  love  makes  Father  and  Son  mutually 


404  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

dependent  on  each  other,  and  so  tends  to  repeat  itself  ad 
infinitum,  a  necessity  arises  for  a  third  hypostasis,  who  pre- 
serves the  distinction  in  unity,  and  vice  versa,  and  brings 
the  process  of  the  absolute  life  and  love  to  rest,  and  com- 
pletes it.  Without  the  third  person  the  mutual  love  of 
Father  and  Son  would  resolve  itself  into  an  everlasting 
seesaw,  an  eternal  unrest — each  in  turn  losing  Himself  in 
the  other.  In  order  that  the  two  first  persons  in  their 
mutual  self-communication  should  be  at  the  same  time 
eternally  independent,  there  is  needed  a  third  object-subject 
of  their  love,  whom  they  love  in  common,  and  by  whom 
they  are  both  beloved,  as  the  principle  of  absolute  equi- 
poise, of  true  union  in  distinction  (p.  127).  In  this  trinita- 
rian  process  the  initiative  lies  with  the  Father,  and  in  this 
respect  there  is  a  certain  element  of  subordination  in  the 
relation  of  the  Son  to  the  Father.  This  element  may  be 
called  an  eternal  kenosis,  which  is  at  the  same  time  posited 
and  cancelled,  but  is  still  there  as  a  cancelled  moment  (die 
Subordination  des  Sohnes  als  Sohnes  nach  seinem  character 
Jiypostaticus  ist  ewig  trinitarisch  gesetzt  und  aufgehoben, 
iiberwunden:  doch  ist  sie  eben  an  sich  da,  namlich  als 
aufgehobene,  als  uberwundenes  Moment,  p.  150).  This 
eternal  element  of  kenosis  is  the  eternal  possibility  of  In- 
carnation (p.  150).  In  the  Incarnation  that  eternal  kenosis 
becomes  temporal.  The  self-emptying  of  the  Son,  and  His 
being  re-filled  from  the  fulness  of  the  Father,  which  are 
simultaneous  in  the  trinitarian  life,  in  the  incarnate  state 
are  unfolded  into  a  succession  of  moments,  first  the  self- 
emptying,  then  the  being  re-filled.  This  temporal  kenosis, 
in  abstract  language,  may  be  defined  as  the  Son  of  God 
entering  into  Becoming  {We r den),  becoming  a  mere  form 
to  be  gradually  filled  with  divine  contents.  This  entering 
into  Werden,  according  to  Liebner,  cannot  take  place  in 
any  other  way  than  by  Incarnation;  God  cannot  enter 
into  the  creation  except  as  man.  The  entrance  of  the 
Logos  into  Werden  is  co  ipso  Menschwerden.  Hence  the 
problem  of  Christology  is  to  exhibit  the  process  by  which 
the  Logos,  reduced  to  a  form  by  becoming  flesh,  becomes 
as  a  man  progressively  filled  with  divine  contents.  The 
interest  in  this  process  turns  mainly  on  the  moral  and  the 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  B.  4o5 

intellectual  growth  of  Christ.  As  to  the  former,  Liebner, 
as  his  theory  requires,  recognises  the  distinction  in  reference 
to  Christ  between  formal  and  real  freedom — the  former 
consisting  in  liberty  of  choice,  and  involving  the  possibility 
of  a  wrong  choice;  the  latter,  in  the  free  yet  necessary 
doing  of  the  good,  excluding  the  possibility  of  sin.  By  the 
kenosis,  the  will  of  Christ  became  a  form  to  be  filled  by  a 
process  of  ethical  development,  involving  temptation,  with 
ethical  contents,  perfect  holiness.  But  Liebner  differs  from 
Gess  in  treating  the  possibility  of  sinning  involved  in  for- 
mal freedom  as  a  mere  abstraction  in  the  case  of  Christ. 
He  could  be  tempted,  but  He  could  not  sin.  The  personal 
peculiarity  of  Christ  consists  in  the  marvellous  identity  of 
the  posse  non  peccare,  the  posse  peccare,  and  the  non  posse 
peccare  (p.  295).  In  answer  to  the  objection,  that  on  this 
view  Christ  is  after  all  not  truly  human,  Liebner  remarks 
that  He  is  divine- human — that  is  His  peculiarity;  and  asks, 
"  Is  it  not  the  highest  possible  form  of  humanity — das  gott- 
menschliche  Urbild  der  Menschheit — this  complete  ethical 
infallibility  ?  "  (p.  298).  To  justify  the  ascription  of  the 
non  posse  peccare  to  Christ,  he  lays  stress  on  the  considera- 
tion, that  in  His  case  an  ethical  existence  preceded  His 
entrance  into  time,  whereas  in  the  case  of  man  (Adam) 
only  an  ethical  idea  preceded  his  existence  (Seinem  Werden 
geht  ein  (ethisches)  Sein  voraus;  unserm  Werden  nur  die 
Idee,  die  ideelle  Bestimmung,  p.  303).  With  regard  to  the 
intellectual  development  of  Christ,  Liebner  thinks  that  his 
theory  enables  him  to  resolve  the  difficulties  very  simply. 
The  doctrine  of  the  Logos  entered  into  Werden,  as  to  self- 
consciousness,  takes  the  following  shape:  In  infancy  the 
Logos  had  no  actual  self-consciousness,  only  the  divine- 
human  Potenz.  He  had  His  consciousness  in  the  Father, 
He  was  lost  in  the  Father,  and  came  only  in  the  course 
of  development  through  the  mediation  of  the  Spirit 
to  self-consciousness,  which  from  the  very  first  was 
divine-human.  It  took  the  form  of  presentment  in  the 
boy  of  twelve.  The  baptism  was  a  critical  point  in 
the  self-consciousness  of  Jesus,  at  which  He  became 
fully  acquainted  with  Himself  (p.  311).  Liebner  further 
discusses   the   development    of  Christ   on    what    he    calls 


406  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

the  nature-side.  He  says,  Christ  as  the  Head  is  the  sum 
of  human  nature,  of  the  whole  organic  system  of  the  nat- 
ural gifts  of  humanity,  an  individual  and  yet  a  universal  man. 
Not,  however,  as  if  in  Christ  all  human  gifts  attained  to 
actual  development.  His  vocation  as  Redeemer  demanded 
the  actualization  only  of  the  highest  moments.  Never- 
theless in  these,  in  His  holiness,  all  possible  human  gifts 
were  sanctified.  In  Christ  lay  the  principle  of  the  true 
artist,  statesman,  etc. ;  though  He  was  neither  actu,  because 
He  did  not  need  to  be.  This  doctrine  of  a  pleromatic  hu- 
manity is  connected  in  Liebner's  case,  as  in  the  case  of 
many  other  German  theologians  {e.g.  Ebrard),  with  the 
theory  that  the  Incarnation  was  destined  to  take  place 
irrespective  of  sin.  Sin  affected  the  accidental  conditions, 
but  not  the  fact  of  Incarnation.  The  Christological  theory 
of  Liebner  is  summed  up  by  himself  in  these  terms:  "  Christ 
was  the  Logos  entering  into  Werden,  which  eo  ipso  is  to 
become  man.  Hereby  a  theanthropic  personality  is  formed 
with  the  to  it  adequate  universal  nature,  as  condition  of  its 
realization  in  the  world,  which  personality,  at  first  pure 
Potence,  in  successive  developments  under  the  form  of 
human  knowledge  and  will  (reason  and  freedom),  at  each 
stage  of  human  life,  as  it  came  in  natural  course,  infallibly, 
and  yet  in  a  truly  human  ethical  process,  identified  itself 
with  the  divine  element.  This  is  the  notion  which  alone 
helps  to  solve  the  problem  of  the  union  of  the  two  moments, 
which  irresistibly  press  themselves  upon  our  view  as  we 
survey  the  Christological  contents  of  Scripture;  on  the  one 
hand,  that  Christ  receives  all  in  truly  human  ethical  activity 
from  the  Father,  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  on  the  other 
hand,  is  conscious  of  all  as  originally  and  essentially  His 
own."  ["  Christus  war  der  Logos  ins  Werden  eingegangen, 
was  eo  ipso  Menschwerden  ist.  Hiemit  ist  eine  gott- 
menschliche  Personlichkeit  gesetzt  mit  der  ihr  adaquaten 
universalen  Natur  als  Bedingung  ihrer  Realisirung  in  der 
Welt;  welche  Personlichkeit,  zunachst  reine  Potenz,  in  suc- 
cessiver  Entwickelung  unter  der  Form  des  menschlichen 
Wissens  und  Wollens  (Vernunft  und  Freiheit)  auf  jedei 
menschlichen  Lebensstufe,  wie  sie  mit  der  natiirlichen  Ent- 
wickelung    gegeben    war,    unfehlbar    und    doch    in    einem 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  B.  407 

wahrhaft  menschlich  ethischen  Process  sich  mit  dem  gott- 
lichen  Inhalt  wieder  zusammenschloss.  Dieses  ist  der  allein 
losende  Begriff  fur  die  Verbindung  der  beiden  Momente, 
die  aus  dem  Totaleindruck  des  christologischen  Schriftin- 
halts  sich  unwiderstehlich  aufdrangen:  das  Christus  Alles 
in  wahrer  menschlicher  ethischer  Arbeit  von  seinem  himm- 
lischen  Vater  empfangt  und  doch  zugleich  Alles  urspriing- 
lich  und  wesentlich  sich  zugehorig  weiss  "  (p.  345)-]  Liebner 
repels  the  charge  of  Apollinarism  which,  he  imagines,  many- 
may  be  ready  to  bring  against  his  theory,  by  pointing  out 
that  in  the  Apollinarian  theory  the  sinlessness  of  Christ 
is  guaranteed  by  the  exclusion  of  freedom:  Christ's  holiness 
is  a  physical  thing,  there  is  no  ethical  development.  He 
also  remarks,  that  the  idea  of  the  Head  of  humanity,  by 
which  the  doctrine  of  God-manhood  is  completed,  is  strange- 
to  the  Apollinarian  system.  At  the  same  time,  he  attaches- 
high  value  to  Apollinaris  in  the  history  of  Christology,  and; 
says  that  the  great  questions  he  raised  were  not  answered 
in  his  age  by  the  Church,  and  have  not  even  yet  been  truly 
answered  (p.  372).  Having  ranged  Liebner  under  the 
Gessian  type,  it  is  necessary  in  justice  to  him  to  add,  that 
he  condemns  the  Zinzendorfian  metamorphic  kenosis  as 
exaggerated,  unscriptural,  monstrous,  and  beset  with  the 
greatest  difficulties.  The  Christological  image  in  Scripture, 
he  thinks,  shows,  along  with  true  humanity,  a  surplus  of 
the  superhuman,  superadamitic,  which  cannot  be  recon- 
ciled with  the  fiction  of  the  transformation  of  the  Logos 
into  a  man  (pp.  338-340). 

HOFMANN  discusses  the  Incarnation  in  the  second  vol- 
ume of  his  work,  Der  Schriftbeweis,  ein  theologischer  Ver- 
such  (pp.  1-43,  Zweite  Auflage).  His  Christology  is  of  the 
kenotic  type,  but  it  is  not  easy  to  fix  his  precise  where- 
abouts, as  on  some  points  he  does  not  explain  himselfclearly. 
This  is  especially  the  case  in  reference  to  the  question 
whether  Christ  had  a  rational  soul  distinct  from  the  depo- 
tentiated  Logos.  In  reply  to  Doiner,  who  classed  him 
among  those  who  supported  that  view  of  the  kenosis,  ac- 
cording to  which  the  Logos  became  a  human  soul,  he  says: 
"  What  good  can  it  do  to  bring  together  texts  in  which, 
in  an  accidental  way,  mention  is  made  of  the  body,  soul, 


408  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

and  spirit  of  Jesus  ?  After  it  has  once  been  said  that  He 
became  man,  it  is  self-evident  that  to  Him  all  that  belongs 
whereby  a  man  is  a  man.  And  I  think  I  may  leave  the 
matter  thus,  after  Dorner  has  made  the  discovery,  that  I 
evidently,  not  altogether  without  design,  avoid  expressing 
myself  concerning  the  soul  of  Christ,  on  which  account  he 
forthwith  reckons  me  among  those  who  patronize  the  form 
of  the  kenosis,  according  to  which  the  Logos  became  a  hu- 
man soul.  All  that  he  says  on  that  score  does  not  affect 
me  in  the  least,  and  only  in  the  one  point  is  he  right,  when 
he  says:  the  thesis  that  God  in  reducing  His  actuality  to  a 
Potence  thereby  becomes  man,  or  inversely  that  man  is  God 
potentially,  God  standing  in  need  of  development,  lies  out- 
side of  my  range  of  vision.  But  the  question  which  lately 
Gess  has  propounded  in  order  to  answer  it  in  the  negative, 
whether  there  was  in  Jesus,  beside  the  Logos,  a  soul  derived 
from  Mary,  has  not  for  me  any  sense  at  all,  as  every  one 
will  understand  who  from  this  book  knows  what  the  soul 
and  what  the  Incarnation  means  for  me.  The  case  stands 
for  Christ's  soul-life  not  otherwise  than  with  that  of  every 
one  born  of  woman."  ["  Was  kann  es  niitzen,  solche 
Schriftstellen  zusammen-zutragen,  in  welchen  zufalliger 
Weise  von  Jesu  Leib  oder  Seele  oder  Geist  die  Rede  ist  ? 
Nachdem  einmal  gesagt  ist,  dass  er  Mensch  geworden, 
versteht  sich  von  selbst,  dass  ihm  alles  das  geeignet  hat, 
was  dazu  gehort  damit  ein  Mensch  Mensch  sei.  Und  hie- 
bei,  meine  ich,  kann  ich  es  auch  jetzt  lassen,  nachdem  Dor- 
ner die  Entdeckung  gemacht  hat,  dass  ich  uber  Christi 
Seele  mich  auszusprechen  offenbar  nicht  ganz  absichtlos 
vermeide,  weshalb  er  mich  sofort  denen  beizahlt,  welche 
diejenige  Wendung  der  Kenosis  vertreten,  wornach  durch 
sie  der  Logos  menschliche  Seele  geworden.  Alles  das, 
was  er  dort  ausfuhrt,  geht  mich  auch  nicht  das  Mindeste 
an,  und  nur  in  dem  Einem  hat  er  das  Rechte  getroffen, 
-dass  er  sagt,  der  Satz,  dass  der  seine  Actualitat  zur  Potenz 
herabsetzende  Gott  eben  damit  an  ihm  selbst  Mensch,  oder 
umgekehrt,  der  Mensch  potenzieller,  entwikelungsbediirf- 
tiger  Gott  sei,  liege  ausserhalb  meines  Gesichtskreises. 
Die  Frage  aber  welche  sich  neuerlich  Gess  gestellt  hat, 
um  sie  zu  verneinen,  ob  in  Jesu  neben  dem  Logos  eine  aus 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  B.  409 

Maria  stammende  Seele  gewesen,  hat  fur  mich  gar  keinen 
Sinn,  wie'Jeder  begreifen  wird,  der  aus  diesem  Buche  kennt. 
was  mir  die  Seele  und  was  mir  Christi  Menschwerdung  ist. 
Es  verhalt  sich  mit  Christi  seelischem  Leben  nicht  anders. 
als  mit  dem  eines  jeden  vom  Weibe  Geborenen  "  (p.  43).] 
Instead  of  distinctly  answering  the  question  whether  the 
Logos  and  the  human  soul  of  Christ  were  the  same  or  dis- 
tinct, Hofmann  here  tells  us  it  has  no  meaning  for  him,  and 
for  the  rest  refers  us  to  his  representation  of  the  Incarna- 
tion. Turning  to  that,  we  find  him  interpreting  Phil.  ii.  6  f. 
as  teaching  an  exchange  of  the  form  of  God  for  the  form  of 
a  servant,  and  extracting  from  John  i.  14  the  idea  that  the 
Word  exchanged  His  previous  form  of  being  for  another 
which  is  its  opposite  (Widerspiel),  giving  up  His  Godhead 
and  assuming  our  nature.  "  We  are  flesh,  He  became  it." 
["  Wir  sind  <5<*7>l,  er  ist  es  geworden  "  (p.  26).]  In  accor- 
dance with  this  view,  we  are  told  that  all  the  formulae 
must  be  given  up  which  are  derived  from  a  conception  of 
the  incarnation  as  a  union  of  the  divine  and  human  natures 
(p.  22).  Yet  we  are  not  to  suppose  that  the  incarnate  Lo- 
gos has  ceased  to  be  God.  "  He  remains  who  He  was, 
though  He  has  ceased  to  be  what  He  was:  "  ["  Allerdings 
aber  ist  er  der  geblieben,  der  er  war  (oder  besser  gesagt, 
der  er  ewiger  Weise  ist).  Dies  liegt  schon  darin,  dass  er, 
derselbe,  welcher  Gott  bei  Gott  gewesen,  Fleisch  gewor- 
den, hiezu  in  die  Welt  gekommen  ist.  Nur  das,  was  er  war 
(namlich  geschichtlicher  Weise  war),  hat  er  aufgehort  zu 
sein,  um  etwas  Anderes  zu  werden  "  (p.  26)].  The  two 
clauses  put  within  brackets  in  the  above  extract  (by  me, 
not  by  the  author)  contain  hints  of  the  view  taken  by  Hof- 
mann of  the  bearing  of  the  Incarnation  on  the  doctrine  of 
the  Trinity.  The  Logos  remains  in  an  eternal  manner 
{ewiger  Weise}  God  after  He  has  become  man.  That  does 
not  mean,  however,  that  the  incarnate  Logos  has  a  double 
historical  existence,  one  in  the  flesh,  the  other  as  world- 
governing  Logos.  The  one  form  of  existence  has  been  ex- 
changed for  the  other  (p.  23).  It  is  true,  indeed,  that  even 
on  earth,  even  in  His  mother's  womb,  as  a  child  growing  in 
wisdom  and  stature,  sleeping  and  waking,  working  and  suf- 
fering, the  Son  of  God  took  part  in  the  government  of  the 


410  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

world,  because  in  all  these  He  was  fulfilling  the  eternal  pur- 
pose of  God  for  the  salvation  of  men,  in  which  the  divine 
government  of  the  world  has  its  unity.  But  the  incarnate 
Logos  in  His  state  of  exinanition  takes  part  in  the  govern- 
ment of  the  world,  not  as  a  Lord,  but  as  a  servant  (pp.  26,  27). 
In  this  part  of  his  scheme  of  thought,  Hofmann  substantially 
agrees  with  Gess,  who  makes  Christ  cease  from  the  govern- 
ment of  the  world  during  His  life  on  earth;  only  he  does 
not  agree  to  call  the  fact  a  cessation  from  such  government, 
because  he  holds  that  even  in  serving,  Christ  was,  in  a  new 
way,  ruling  (p.  27,  where  Gess's  view  is  referred  to).  Hof- 
mann declines  Ebrard's  way  of  stating  the  case,  that  the 
eternal  form  of  existence  was  exchanged  for  the  temporal. 
He  maintains  that  the  right  way  to  put  the  matter  is  to 
say  that  the  Logos,  retaining  throughout  the  eternal  form 
of  existence,  exchanges  one  form  of  historical  existence 
for  another.  For  he  holds  that  the  Logos  was  a  historical 
person  before  He  became  man.  Previous  to  the  Incarna- 
tion, He  occupied  the  historical  position  of  a  supramundane, 
omnipotent,  world-governing  Power  and  Will.  In  the  In- 
carnation He  entered  into  an  intramundane  state  of  being, 
— into  the  human  finitude  of  existence,  knowledge,  and 
power.  ["  Aber  so  ist  es  nicht,  dass  er  die  Ewigkeitsform 
mit  der  Zeitlichkeitsform  vertauscht  hat,  sondern  aus 
geinem  geschichtlichen  Stande  der  Ueberweltlichkeit, 
des  weltbeherrschenden  Konnens  und  Wollens  und  Gegen- 
wartigseins,  ist  er,  der  hier  und  dort  gleich  Ewige,  in  die 
Innerweltlichkeit,  in  die  menschliche  Umschriinktheit  des 
Daseins  und  Wissens,  und  Konnens  eingegangen,  die  eine 
geschichtliche  Bethatigung  seines  ewigen  Wesens  mit  der 
andern  vertauschend  "  (p.  24).]  The  import  of  this  view, 
in  its  bearing  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  is,  that  the 
Incarnation  affected  not  the  essential,  but  only  the  eco- 
nomical Trinity.  Hofmann's  doctrine  with  reference  to  the 
Trinity  is  as  follows: — The  names  Father,  Son,  and  Spirit 
express  an  interdivine  relation, — that  is  to  say,  there  is 
such  a  thing  as  an  essential  Trinity,  but  the  essential 
Trinity  is  only  the  presupposition  of  God's  historical  self- 
manifestation.  As  it  is  of  this  self-manifestation  alone  that 
the  Scriptures  directly  speak,  the  interdivine  relations  are 


Appendix. — Lechire  IV. — Note  B.  \\\ 

always  represented  as  involving  inequality.    Christ  is  God's, 
and  God  is  the  Head  of  Christ,  and  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of 
in  the  neuter  gender  (vol.  i.  p.  200).     The  interdivine  rela- 
tion is  one  of  equality:  all  three  persons  are  equal  in  power 
and  glory;  but  the  relation  becomes  one  of  inequality  as 
soon  as  it  enters  on  a  process  of  self-fulfilment  (i.    268). 
This  process  began  with  the  creation,  and  was  completed 
by  the  Incarnation.     In  the  creation  the  interdivine  rela- 
tion entered  into  its  lowest  degree  of  inequality,  the  three 
persons  of  the  Godhead  becoming  respectively  the  Father, 
the  supramundane  Creator;  the  Son,  the  original  world-aim, 
"  urbildliches  Weltziel  "  (i.  270);  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  the 
intramundane  active  Life-ground,  "  der  inweltliche  wirk- 
same  Lebensgrund  "  (i.  190).     In  the  Incarnation  the  inter- 
divine relation  between  Father  and  Son  entered    into  its 
highest  degree  of  inequality,  becoming  as  great,  in  fact,  as 
it  could,  without  involving  a  self-negation  of  God  [Da  ward 
die  Ungleichheit  des  innergottlichen  Verhaltnisses  in  sei- 
ner geschichtlichen  Gestaltung  so  gross,  als  sie  ohne  Selbst- 
verneinung  Gottes  werden  konnte,  ii.  24].     But  even  in  this 
extreme  inequality  the  relation    remained  essentially  the 
same.     Though  Christ,  not  partially  only,  but  completely, 
unreservedly,  renounced  all  supramundane  self-manifesta- 
tion, yet  He  did  not  cease  to  be  God,  ewiger  Weise.     He 
entered   into  human   finitude,  but   He   did   not  become  a 
finite  creature  [Nicht  theilweise,  sondern  vollig  und  ohne 
Vorbehalt  hat  sich  Christus  in  seiner  Menschwerdung  aller 
uberweltlichen  Selbsterweisung  begeben,  ohne  dass  er  darum 
aufhorte,  was  ja  nicht  aufhoren  kann,  weil  es  auch  nicht 
angefangen  hat,  ewiger  Weise  Gott  zu  sein.     Er  hat  sich  in 
die  menschliche  Umschranktheit  dahingegeben,   ohne  da- 
durch  ein  endliches    Geschopf  zu  werden.     Die    Art    und 
Weise    seiner  Selbsterzeigung   ist  eine  andere   geworden, 
aber  was  er  erzeigt,  ist  nachher  wie  vorher  seine  nicht  zum 
blossen  Sein  der  Potenz  reducirte,  sondern  ewige,  also  ihrer 
selbst  und  damit  der  Welt  machtige  Gottheit,  ii.  24].     Hof- 
mann  characterizes  Gess'  Subordinatian  view  of  the  Trinity 
as  an  error,  and  ascribes  Gess'  mistake  to  a  neglect  of  the 
distinction  on  which  he  (Hofmann)  insists  between  the  his- 
torical inequality  and  the  eternal  equality  of  the  interdi- 


412  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

vine  relation  (i.  p.  271).  On  another  point  this  instructive 
writer  differs  from  Gess,  viz.  in  reference  to  the  moral  de- 
velopment of  Christ.  He  says,  with  reference  specially  tc 
Ebrard's  view,  that  it  is  false  to  say  of  Jesus  in  His  earthly 
life  only  potnit  non  peccare,  reserving  the  non  potest  peccare 
for  the  glorified  state.  The  true  distinction  between  the 
two  states  is,  that  in  the  status  exinanitionis  Christ  could  be 
tempted,  while  in  the  glorified  state  He  cannot  be  tempted 
(ii.  65).  Hofmann  holds  that  the  sinlessness  of  Christ's 
human  nature  is  a  matter  of  course  (ii.  31),  and  that  it  was 
impossible  for  the  man  Jesus  to  sin,  because  the  everlasting 
God,  become  man,  could  not  deny  Himself.  His  human 
historical  will  could  not  enter  into  contradiction  with  His 
eternal  divine  will,  which  dwelt  within  the  former,  and  the 
eternal  God  became  man  just  because  that  was  the  sure 
way  to  victory  over  sin.  [Der  menschgewordene  ewige 
Gott  konnte  nicht  sich  selbst  verneinen,  der  Mensch  Jesus 
also  konnte  nicht  siindigen,  sein  menschlich  geschichtliches 
Wollen  nicht  in  Widerspruch  treten  mit  seinem  demselben 
innewohnenden  ewig  gottlichen  Wollen,  und  der  ewige 
Gott  ist  eben  deswegen  Mensch  geworden,  weil  dies  der 
gewisse  Sieg  iiber  die  Sunde  war.  Es  ist  also  falsch  von 
Jesu  in  seinem  Fleischesleben  nur  zu  sagen,  potuit  non  pec- 
care, und  erst  von  dem  Verklarten,  non  potest  peccare.  Der 
Unterschied  allein  ist  zu  setzen,  dass  er  dort  hat  versucht 
werden  konnen,  hier  aber  unversuchbar  ist,  ii.  p.  65.]  It 
remains  to  add  that  Hofmann  is  substantially  at  one  with 
Liebner  in  regard  to  the  sense  in  which  the  exchange  of 
forms  implied  in  the  kenosis  is  to  be  understood.  Liebner 
makes  the  ^.opcprj  dovXov  signify  the  human  existence-form 
as  one  of  dependence  and  subjection  to  God,  the  existence- 
form  of  the  creaturely  ethico-religious  personality.  The 
nopq>h  0eou,  on  the  other  hand,  signifies  the  existence- 
form  of  absolute  independence,  freedom,  absolute  person- 
ality (p.  327).  Hofmann  says  the  apostle's  meaning  is, 
that  Christ  deprived  Himself  of  the  appearance  in  divine 
self-glorious  might,  in  which  He  existed  over  against  the 
world,  in  order  to  assume  the  appearance  of  intramundane 
servitude  and  dependence;  not,  indeed,  of  servitude  to  men, 
but  of  creaturely  dependence  on  God;  and  in  this  exchange 


Appendix. — Lecttire  IV. — Note  C.  413 

of  the   one  m°p<pv  for   the   other   did   the   kenosis  consist 
(i.  p.  140). 

GOODWIN  {Christ  and  Humanity.  London:  Hodder  & 
Stoughton,  1875)  gives  a  lengthened  sketch  of  the  history 
of  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  person,  with  a  view  to  show  the 
unsatisfactoriness  of  the  Church  Christology  in  all  its  forms, 
and  then  proceeds  to  state  and  vindicate  his  own  view, 
which  is  essentially  the  same  as  those  of  the  German  writers 
above  referred  to,  especially  Gess  and  Liebner.  This  au- 
thor is  familiar  with  the  German  kenotic  literature,  but  he 
arrived  at  his  opinions  independently,  and  previous  to  his 
acquaintance  with  European  advocates  of  them.  The  In- 
carnation, according  to  him,  was  the  human  element  (the 
Logos),  eternally  in  God,  becoming  man  by  taking  flesh, 
and  occupying  the  place  of  a  soul.  He  founds  his  theory 
on  the  basis  of  the  essential  unity  of  the  divine  and  human. 

Note  C— Page  153. 

Das  Dogma  vom  heiligen  A  bendmahl  und  seine  Geschichte, 
Frankfurt-a-M.  1845;  and  CJiristliche  Dogmatik,  Konigs- 
berg  185 1.  The  prefaces  to  these  works  contain  interesting 
particulars,  affording  a  glimpse  into  the  circumstances  and 
feelings  out  of  which  they  arose.  The  preface  to  the 
earlier  work  especially  reveals  the  state  of  the  writer's 
mind,  as  that  of  one  full  of  high  hopes  with  regard  to  the 
union  of  the  two  branches  of  the  German  Church,  and 
burning  with  desire  to  serve  that  sacred  cause.  The  author 
dedicates  his  work  to  four  friends  who  were  in  one  way  or 
another  associated  with  the  formation  of  its  plan  or  the 
execution.  Two  of  the  friends  he  reminds  of  the  many 
never-to-be-forgotten  Sunday  evening  conversations  in 
which  they  discussed  together  the  questions  at  issue  be- 
tween the  two  confessions,  he  representing  the  Reformed, 
they  the  Lutheran,  but  all  being  one  in  heart,  and  cherish- 
ing the  hope  of  being  one  day  one  in  outward  church 
fellowship.  It  was  amidst  these  conversations  that  the 
purpose  was  formed  to  make  an  attempt  at  a  solution  of 
the  weightiest  doctrinal  differences.  Another  of  the  friends 
he  reminds  of  the  evening  of  1st  September  1840,  when. 


414  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

refreshed  by  a  delightful  walk  among  the  hills,  and  inspired 
by  the  harvest  sunshine  and  the  fragrance  of  the  shrubbery, 
they  sat  by  the  murmuring  spring,  and,  amid  deepening 
shadows  of  the  advancing  day,  talked  of  the  unity  of  their 
faith  and  love  and  hope, — and  were  glad  because  they 
were  at  one  in  their  views  on  the  Holy  Supper  of  the  Lord. 
The  fourth  friend  he  thanks  for  valuable  aid  in  procuring 
out  of  the  chaos  of  the  Erlangen  library  the  literary 
material  necessary  for  the  execution  of  a  ten  years'  task. 
In  His  preface  to  the  CJiristliche  Dogmatik,  the  author 
mentions  a  fact  which  illustrates  to  what  an  extent  the 
works  of  the  older  dogmaticians  have  been  studied  in 
Germany  in  recent  times,  viz.  that  his  citations  are  taken 
from  forty-six  volumes  of  Reformed  authors,  belonging  to 
the  sixteenth,  seventeenth,  and  eighteenth  centuries.  Such 
particulars  may  savour  somewhat  of  egotism,  but  they 
bring  before  us  in  an  interesting  way  the  laudable  habit, 
characteristic  of  German  students,  of  combining  exact  and 
extensive  historical  research  with  original  and  independent 
thought.  German  theologians  are  not  the  slaves  of  their 
old  writers,  but  they  know  them  and  value  them. 

Note  D. — Page  159. 

For  the  satisfacion  of  such  as  may  wish  fuller  information 
respecting  Ebrard's  method  of  dealing  with  the  speculative 
problems  of  Christology,  I  give  here,  in  condensed  form,  his 
views  on  the  two  questions:  How  can  divine  and  human 
properties  be  united  in  the  same  subject  ?  and  how  can  the 
eternal  and  the  incarnate  Logos  have  an  identical  con- 
sciousness ?  The  original  passages  on  which  this  statement 
is  based  will  be  found  in  Abendmahl,  i.  186-202;  Dogmatik, 
ii.  144-148.  The  two  questions  (above  stated)  cannot  be 
answered  so  long  as  time  and  eternity  are  regarded  as  two 
mutually  exclusive  forms,  and  it  is  not  understood  that  it 
is  an  everlasting  determination  of  God  to  reveal  His  essence 
in  the  form  of  a  temporal  development,  as  werdender  Gott, 
as  entwickelender  Gottmensch.  Everything  turns  on  re- 
garding the  wall  of  partition  between  eternity  and  time, 
not  as  absolute,  but  only  as  requiring  mediation.     Eternity 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  D.  41 5 

as  the  form  of  extra  temporality  (Auserzeitlichkeit),  having 
time  standing  over  against  it  as  the  Other,  non-eternal,  is 
not  the  highest,  but  the  time-form  filled  with  eternal 
essence  is  the  highest  goal.  Eternity  as  form  of  the  extra- 
temporal  is  the  form  of  the  Trinity  as  the  world-governing; 
but  God  wills  to  glorify  His  Essence  in  the  world,  and  in 
order  to  this  He  must  give  up  the  Ewigkeitsform  and 
assume  the  time-form.  God,  indeed,  as  causa  sui,  can- 
not enter  into  time;  but  as  objective  to  Himself,  as 
eternal  personal  Logos,  He  can,  and  He  has,  Scripture 
being  witness  (Phil.  ii.  6  ff.),  and  in  so  doing  He  has 
exchanged  the  Ewigkeitsform  for  the  time-form.  In  the 
incarnate  Logos  we  can  have  no  difficulty  in  finding  all 
divine  properties,  if  only  one  do  not  conceive  these  in  a 
stiff,  external  way,  but  separate  between  the  Ewigkeitsform 
appropriate  to  the  world-governing  God,  and  the  eternal 
Essence  appearing  in  the  incarnate  God.  Omnipotence 
is  not  to  be  thought  of  as  meaning  that  God  can  do  all 
that  is  possible,  "  alles  Mogliche  kann,"  as  if  there  were  a 
sphere  of  possibilia  outside  and  independent  of  God;  but  as 
signifying  that  the  sphere  of  the  actual  (geschehenes)  has 
its  principle  and  prius  in  the  divine  will.  In  the  world- 
governing  God  this  omnipotence  appears  as  a  willing  and 
positing  of  the  whole  world  in  all  times  and  places;  in  the 
incarnate  God  it  appears  in  time-form  as  a  will  having 
dominion  over  particular  powers  of  nature  coming  in  its 
way  (Wunderkraft),  which  is  just  the  individual  expression 
of  the  dominion  of  the  spirit  over  nature  to  which  man  is 
destined.  In  like  manner  omnipresence  does  not  mean  that 
God  is  in  all  places  "  an  alien  Orten  ware,"  as  if  there  were 
a  space  outside  and  independent  of  God;  but  that  space  is 
in  God,  and  everything  in  time  and  space  has  its  prius  in  the 
being  of  God.  In  the  world-governing  God  omnipresence 
is  all-space  embracing  being;  in  the  incarnate  God  it  signi- 
fies that  Jesus  finds  in  this  or  that  space  no  limit  of  His 
corporeal  being,  is  not  ruled  by  space,  but  rules  it,  and  is 
where  He  will, — a  dominion  to  which  man  is  destined. 
Omniscience  does  not  mean  that  God  knows  all  real'  and 
possible  things,  but  that  His  will  and  vision  are  the 
principle  and  prius  of  all  that  is  for  us  knowable  of  the 


q.16  TJie  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

whole  world.  In  the  world  Governor  it  is  a  real  overlooking 
(Ueberschauen)  of  all  spaces  and  times;  in  the  Incarnate  it 
amounts  to  this,  that  the  knowable  is  no  limit  for  the 
knowledge  of  Jesus,  but  He  sees  through  (durchschaut) 
single  objects,  coming  in  His  way  in  time,  unerringly  in  the 
light  of  the  Truth  which  He  brings  with  Him  as  His 
essence, — a  dominion  of  spirit  over  the  objects  of  knowledge 
to  which  man  is  destined.  With  these  explanations  the 
first  of  the  two  problems,  the  combination  of  divine  and 
human  properties  in  Christ,  appears  no  longer  insoluble. 
As  for  the  second,  three  considerations  go  far  towards 
its  solution:  (i)  The  existence  and  manner  of  existence 
(Daseyn  und  Soseyn)  of  the  world — human  freedom,  and 
its  results  included — are  grounded  in  an  eternal  free  neces- 
sary act  of  God.  The  love  of  God,  which  calls  forth  and 
mediates  the  contrast  I  and  thou  in  God  Himself,  also  calls 
forth  the  existence  of  a  time-sphere  (Welt),  whose  special 
manner  of  being  is  determined  by  the  purpose  that  God's 
essence  should  be  glorified  therein.  This  sphere  is  first 
nature, — with  man  it  becomes  ethical,  spiritual.  Nature  is 
for  man's  sake.  Man  is  nature's  crown,  yea,  its  centre  or 
principle,  last  in  creation,  but  spiritually  the  prius.  But 
humanity  itself  is  an  organism;  and  as  nature  seeks  man,  so 
Humanity  seeks  to  gather  up  its  multitude  into  a  last  highest 
enfolding,  in  a  king,  a  perfect  man,  in  whom  the  unity  of 
man  with  God,  the  glorification  of  the  Divine  Essence  in 
time,  will  be  completed.  (2)  Now  the  Logos  knows  Him- 
self as  the  world-creating,  organizing  Word  of  the  Father, 
as  the  Wisdom  of  the  Father  appearing  in  the  world.  The 
world  is  objective  to  the  Logos,  and  He  sees  Himself 
therein.  But  not  in  it,  so  far  as  it  forms  an  abstract  time- 
line (Zietlinie),  or  so  far  as  it  is  corrupted  by  abuse  of 
human  freedom,  but  only  so  far  as  it  is  an  organism  ordered 
by  God's  essence  and  sanctified  by  God's  grace.  The  eternal 
intuition  by  which  the  Logos  sees  the  world  must  not  be 
regarded,  after  the  analogy  of  human  vision,  as  an  abstract 
overlooking  (Uberschauen)  of  the  time-line,  but  as  a 
through-looking  (Durchschauen)  of  the  organism  of  human- 
ity. Time  and  the  world,  humanity  in  its  historical  course, 
are  for  the  eye  of  the  Logos  not  a  line,  but  a  body  with  a 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  D.  417 

centre.  That  centre  is  the  God-man.  Jesus  of  Nazareth 
is  the  middle  point  of  history,  blossom  of  the  old,  principle 
of  the  new  time;  the  King,  to  whose  kingdom  we  are  all 
called,  the  last,  highest  crown  of  all  development.  So  He 
appears  to  the  view  of  the  Logos.  Not  as  the  particular 
individual  who  lived  under  Augustus,  but  as  the  centre  of 
the  world  and  of  humanity:  He  beholds  the  world  as  the 
appearance  of  His  own  eternal  being;  He  beholds  it  in  the 
microkosm  of  the  person  Jesus  Christ  as  in  Himself;  He 
knows  Himself  from  eternity,  as  Jesus  the  Christ  who  is  end 
and  centre  of  the  rational  universe  (des  logischen  Wesens). 
(3)  Jesus  Christ  underwent  development  as  a  man,  but  His 
development  was  normal  and.  all-sided.  Normal:  That  in- 
born feeling  of  every  man,  that  he  is  created  to  be  one  in  life 
with  God,  which  is  repressed  in  the  sinful,  was  present  in 
Jesus  the  sinless,  first  as  feeling,  in  all  its  force.  He  felt 
God  to  be  His  Father.  When  reflection  came,  His  knowl- 
edge of  objects  and  relations,  of  His  own  being  and  of  God, 
was  unerring.  He  knew  Himself  as  holy,  as  the  only  Holy 
One;  out  of  the  prophets  He  knew  the  desire  of  humanity 
for  salvation,  and  His  own  vocation  as  Redeemer;  He  knew, 
from  the  relations  in  which  He  was  placed,  the  necessity 
that  He,  the  sinless,  should  experience  in  vicarious  suffering 
the  culmination  of  sin.  His  baptism  was  probably  the 
point  at  which  He  made  the  transaction  from  mere  presenti- 
ment to  clear  knowledge  of  His  calling.  But  if  He  knew 
Himself  as  the  Redeemer,  He  could  not  fail  to  know  Him- 
self also  as  the  centre  of  the  world's  history,  as  the  Son  of 
man,  the  SsvrEpos  'ASdu,  in  whom  was  to  be  found  the  nXrip<*>na 
of  human  powers,  the  exaltation  of  humanity  to  God,  the 
absolute  communication  of  God  to  humanity.  That  is,  He 
knew  Himself  as  the  God-man,  as  the  Logos  of  the  Father 
(the  eternal  hypostatic  thought  of  the  Father  concerning 
the  world)  come  to  manifestation,  as  the  incarnate  Logos 
who  before  Abraham — is.  In  short,  the  eternal  Logos 
knows  Himself  as  the  Logos  appearing  in  time,  the  incar- 
nate Logos  knows  Himself  as  the  incarnate  eternal  Logos. 
The  consciousness  of  both  is  perfectly  coincident.  It  is 
the  consciousness  of  the  eternal  Essence  destined  to 
appearance  in   time,  the   consciousness  of  the  time-form 


4i 8  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

filled  with  the  eternal  Essence;  in  a  word,  the  neither 
extra-temporal  eternal,  nor  the  relative  temporal  conscious- 
ness, but  the  consciousness  of  the  perfect  interpenetration 
of  time  and  eternity,  the  festive  consciousness  of  the 
marriage  of  time  and  eternity. 

Note  E. — Page  164. 

Under  the  Martensen  type  of  kenosis  may  be  reckoned 
Schoberlein  {Die  Grundlehren  des  Heils  entwickelt  aus  dem 
Princip  der  Liebe,  von  Ludwig  Schoberlein,  Berlin  1 851)  and 
Mr  Hutton  {Essays  Theological  and  Literary). 

Schoberlein  represents  Christ  as  becoming,  in  the  Incar- 
nation, a  single  human  personality.  The  Ego  of  this  hu- 
man being  is  not  a  new  one,  having  a  beginning  as  a  crea- 
ture, above  which  His  own  eternal  Ego  hovers  as  a  higher, 
or  with  which  the  latter  was  united  as  the  Spirit  of  God 
with  our  soul,  but  is  His  own  eternal  Ego  in  full  reality. 
In  time  He  is  wholly  Himself,  the  Ego  of  the  Son  of  God 
remains.  But,  nevertheless,  in  virtue  of  the  human  indi- 
vidual nature  received  from  the  Virgin,  He  lives  here  below 
wholly  as  man,  and  only  as  man,  as  p?ieumatico-corporeal 
(geistig-leibliche)  human  soul;  that  is,  He  has  at  once  nat- 
ural human  feelings  and  impulses,  and  human  self-con- 
sciousness and  will,  in  a  word,  complete  human  per- 
sonality. The  Son  of  God  is  become  completely  like  us, 
truly  emptied  of  His  S6ia,  His  nopcpti  Qiov,  though  not  of 
His  dEovr/i.  In  respect  of  this  pure  human  existence  in 
time,  He  is  distinguished  from  us  only  by  this,  that  He  is 
not,  as  we  are,  simply  a  single  man  among  others,  but — 
seeing  that  in  Him  from  eternity  the  whole  of  humanity  is 
fore-ordained  by  love  to  its  holy  destiny — although  living 
as  single  personality,  yet  bears  in  Himself  the  fulness  of 
the  whole  human  race,  is  the  second  Adam,  made  for  the 
spiritual  life,  as  the  first  was  for  the  natural — is  the  per- 
sonal centre,  the  blossom  of  humanity,  the  man  xa5'  &£oxrfr. 
As  the  Son  of  God  became  a  truly  human  personality, 
Christ  had  a  truly  human  development.  There  is  noth- 
ing in  His  life  which  exceeds  the  limits  of  human  nature, 
and  which  we  through  Him  cannot  attain  to.     Yet  while 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  E.  419 

emptied  of  His  divine  Sola  (seiner  gottlichen  Sola  ganz  und 
gar  entaussert)  with  purely  human  consciousness  and  will, 
perfectly  like  us,  His  divine,  trinitarian  being  and  govern- 
ment suffered  no  interruption.  "  The  love  remains  in  all  its 
humility  exalted:  really  sharing  the  life  of  the  Beloved,  it 
preserves  the  specific  peculiarity  of  its  being.  Such  a  pe- 
culiarity in  the  Son  of  God  is  His  trinitarian  Being  and 
Rule.  Action  and  Being  in  God,  who  is  Spirit  xatf  kfrxrfv, 
the  essence  of  which  is  energy,  are  inseparable."  ["  Die 
Liebe  bleibt  in  all  ihrer  Demuth  erhaben:  das  Leben  des 
Geliebten  wirklich  theilend,  bewahrt  sie  die  spezifische 
Eigenthumlichkeit  ihres  Wesens.  Eine  solche  ist  aber 
beim  Sohne  Gottes  sein  trinitarisches  Seyn  und  Walten. 
Wirken,  und  Seyn  lasst  sich  bei  Gott,  dem  Geiste  xaQ' 
Ikoxijv  dessen  Wesen  kvspysia  ist,  nicht  trennen  "  (p.  65).] 
In  the  Son,  therefore,  there  is  a  union  of  two  ways  of  being 
and  existence.  He  wills  and  knows  Himself  double.  "  He, 
the  same  Ego,  who  is  from  eternity  to  eternity,  is  also  in 
time,  there  eternal,  here  temporal,  there  without  beginning 
and  end,  here  during  the  span  of  a  human  life,  there  as  the 
unlimited,  here  as  the  emptied,  there  with  eternal  conscious- 
ness and  divine  will,  here  with  temporal  consciousness  and 
human  will,  but  so  that  He,  existing  in  the  one,  knows 
Himself  one  with  the  other,  and  vice  versa."  ["  Er,  das- 
selbe  Ich,  das  von  Ewigkeit  ist  und  bis  in  Ewigkeit,  ist 
auch  in  der  Zeit,  dort  ewig,  hier  zeitlich,  dort  ohne  Anfang 
und  Ende,  hier  wahrend  der  Spanne  eines  Menschenlebens, 
dort  als  der  Unumschrankte,  hier  als  der  Entausserte,  dort 
mit  ewigem  Bewusstsein  und  gottlichem  Willen,  hier  mit 
zeitlichem  Bewusstsein  und  menschlichem  Willen,  so  aber, 
dass  er,  in  jenem  seyend,  sich  Eins  mit  diesem  weiss  und 
umgekehrt."]  The  author  admits  that  this  double  life 
wears  an  appearance  of  a  double  personality.  This  appear- 
ance disappears,  however,  "  as  soon  as  we  consider  more 
closely  the  relation  of  eternity  and  time,  of  heaven  and 
earth,  into  which  the  life  of  the  Son  of  God  appears  di- 
vided. We  must  not  combine  therewith  the  representation 
as  if  the  Son  of  God,  during  the  time  of  His  earthly  sojourn, 
had  a  life  in  eternity  parallel  to  that  in  time,  a  life  of  tem- 
poral succession  during  some  thirty  odd  years,   and  within 


4-20  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

the  same  space  of  time  in  which  He  here  walks  after  the 
flesh,  there  governs  the  world,  or  as  if  He  existed  in  part 
here  on  earth,  in  part  in  heaven,  spatially  separated  from 
the  earth.  Eternity  stands  not  to  time  in  a  temporal,  nor 
heaven  to  earth  in  a  spatial  relation ;  but  the  relation  between 
them  is  causal.  Eternity  is  the  cause  of  time,  the  endur- 
ing life-ground  out  of  which  all  time  proceeds,  and  to 
which  it  returns.  Doubtless  it  also  has  its  process  of  de- 
velopment or  unfolding,  but  not  as  time,  and  therefore  not 
temporally  parallel  with  time.  It  is  the  existence-form  of 
the  idea,  of  the  complete  life,  which  as  life  is  as  far  as  pos- 
sible from  being  stagnant;  whilst  time  is  the  form  in  which 
development  runs  through  the  momenta  of  incompleteness 
(in  a  succession  of  stages  mutually  exclusive).  Time  is 
only  a  special  mode  of  appearing,  characteristic  of  creature- 
ly  being,  which  breaks  forth  out  of  the  eternity  of  the  idea, 
and  enters  into  it  again  without  causing  therein  a  temporal 
interruption.  One  may  therefore  not  properly  say  that 
eternity  is  before  time  or  after  time,  as  little  as  during 
time,  understanding  during  in  a  temporal  sense.  Time  is 
for  eternity  and  for  the  eternal  consciousness  a  moment, 
and  that  again  not  a  temporally  measurable,  although  it 
unfolds  itself  in  time  and  for  the  temporal  consciousness  as 
an  unending  succession"  ["  sobald  wir  das  Verhaltniss  von 
Ewigkeit  und  Zeit,  von  Himmel  und  Erde,  in  welche  das 
Leben  des  Sohnes  Gottes  getheilt  erscheint,  naher  be- 
trachten.  Man  darf  nicht  die  Vorstellung  damit  verbin- 
den,  als  ob  der  Sohn  Gottes  die  Zeit  seines  irdischen  Auf- 
enthaltes  auch  in  der  Ewigkeit,  parallel  mit  jenem,  als  ein 
gleiches  Nacheinander  von  etlichen  und  dreissig  Jahren 
durchlebe,  und  innerhalb  desselben  Zeitraums,  in  welchem 
er  hier  nach  dem  Fleische  einhergeht,  dort  die  Welt  re- 
giere,  als  ob  er  zum  Theil  hier  unten  auf  der  Erde,  zum 
Theil  oben  im  Himmel  raumlich  getrennt  von  der  Erde 
existire.  Die  Ewigkeit  steht  zur  Zeit  nicht  in  einem  zeit- 
lichen,  noch  der  Himmel  zur  Erde  in  einem  raumlichen 
Verhaltniss,  sondern  das  Verhaltniss  zwischen  ihnen  ist 
ein  causales.  Die  Ewigkeit  ist  die  causa  der  Zeit,  der 
wahrende  Lebensgrund,  aus  welchem  alle  Zeit  aus-  und 
eingeht.     Wohl    hat    auch    sie  einen    Entwickelungs    oder 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  E.  421 

vielmehr  Entfaltungsprozess,  aber  nicht  wie  die  Zeit,  und 
darum  nicht  irgend  zeitlich-parallel  mit  der  Zeit.  Sie  ist 
die  Existenzform  der  Idee,  des  vollkommenen  Lebens,  das 
als  Leben  eben  nichts  weniger  denn  stagnirt,  wahrend  die 
Zeit  die  Form  ist  in  welcher  die  Entwicklung  durch  die 
Momente  der  Unvollkommenheit  (in  einem  auschliessen- 
den  Nacheinander)  verlauft.  Die  Zeit  ist  nur  eine  besond- 
ere  Erscheinugsweise  des  creatiirlichen  Seyns,  welche  aus 
der  Ewigkeit  der  Idee  hervorbricht  und  in  sie  wieder  ein- 
geht,  ohne  in  ihr  selbst  eine  zeitliche  Unterbrechung  zu 
verursachen.  Man  kann  desshalb  im  Grunde  auch  nicht 
sagen,  dass  die  Ewigkeit  vor  der  Zeit  oder  nach  der  Zeit 
sei,  ebenso  wenig  als  wahrend,  nemlich  zeitlich-wahrend 
der  Zeit.  Die  Zeit  ist  fur  die  Ewigkeit  und  fur  das  ewige 
Bewusstsein  ein  Moment,  und  zwar  wiederum  nicht  ein 
zeitlich  messbarer,  wiewohl  er  sich  in  der  Zeit  und  fur  das 
zeitliche  Bewusstseyn  als  eine  unubersehbare  Folge  aus- 
einanderlegt  "  (p.  67)].  Having  further  elaborated  this  doc- 
trine of  the  relation  of  eternity  to  time  and  of  heaven  to 
earth,  Schoberlein  goes  on  to  apply  the  doctrine  to  Christ, 
thus:  "  Transferring  this  now  to  the  Son  of  God,  who  as 
Son  of  man  lives  here  below,  we  understand  how  His  di- 
vine Being  existed  neither  temporally  nor  spatially  out- 
side His  earthly  personality,  but  His  eternal  glory  and  His 
temporal  self-exinanition,  His  dwelling  in  heaven  and 
conversation  on  earth,  His  eternal  and  His  temporally  un- 
folding love  were  equally  included  in  it.  But  this  eternal 
heavenly  being  and  activity  never  entered  into  His  experi- 
ence in  so  far  as  He  entered  into  the  world  with  temporal 
human  consciousness,  not  to  mention  that  He  never  used 
it  for  Himself  or  for  His  redemption  work.  But  even  as, 
to  our  mind,  the  eternal  life  appears  as  a  life  purely  be- 
yond, although  we  through  faith  bear  it  within  us  here  be- 
low, so  was  it  with  Him;  only  with  the  difference  that  it 
represented  itself  to  Him  not  simply  as  future,  but  as  past, 
because  He  had  already  had  a  place  as  an  Ego  in  the 
Trinity  before  the  Incarnation.  Therefore  when  He  spoke 
out  of  His  own  immediate  consciousness,  He  spoke  of  a 
glory  which  He  had  with  the  Father,  and  which  the 
Father  will  give  Him  again;  and  yet  at  other  times  He  re- 


422  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

ferred  very  distinctly  to  a  presence  and  immanence  of  this 
heavenly  being  and  rule  in  His  person,  when  He  spoke  as 
a  teacher,  and  not  out  of  immediate  experience,  so  that  we 
must  maintain  a  real  Hivoo6i<i,  and  yet  at  the  same  time  the 
MrT/dn,  yea  xPV^^t  without  xpvrpis  of  the  divine  <5o?a  on  the 
part  of  the  incarnate  Son  of  God."  ["  Tragen  wir  diess, 
nun  auf  den  Sohn  Gottes  uber,  der  als  Menschensohn  hie- 
nieden  wandelt,  so  verstehen  wir,  wie  sein  gottliches  Wesen 
weder  zeitlich  noch  raumlich  ausser  seiner  irdischen  Per- 
sonlichkeit  bestanden,  sondern  wie  seine  ewige  Herrlich- 
keit  und  seine  zeitliche  Entausserung,  sein  Wohnen  im 
Himmel  und  sein  Wandel  auf  Erden,  seine  ewig  unendliche 
und  seine  zeitlich  sich  entfaltende  Liebe  gleicherweise  in 
ihr  geschlossen  gewesen.  Aber  diess  ewig  himmlische 
Wesen  und  Wirken  war  ihm,  insofern  er  in  diese  Welt  mit 
zeitlich  menschlichen  Bewusstsein,  hereingetreten  war,  me- 
nials zur  Erfahrung  gekommen,  geschweige  dass  er  sich 
desselben  je  fur  sich  oder  sein  Erlosungswerk  bedient  hatte. 
Sondern  ebenso  wie  unsrer  Vorstellung  das  ewige  Leben 
als  ein  rein  jenseitiges  erscheint,  obwohl  wir  durch  den 
Glauben  es  hienieden  schon  in  uns  tragen,  so  war's  auch 
bei  ihm,  nur  mit  dem  Unterschiede  dass  sich  ihm  dasselbe 
nicht  bloss  zukiinftig,  sondern  zugleich  vergangen  dar- 
stellte,  weil  er  bereits  vor  der  Menschwerdung  als  Ich  in  der 
Trinitat  bestanden  hatte.  Er  sprach  desshalb,  wo  er  aus 
seinem  unmittelbaren  Bewusstsein  heraus  redete,  von  einer 
Herrlichkeit,  die  er  bei  dem  Vater  hatte,  und  die  der  Vater 
ihm  wieder  geben  wird;  und  doch  wies  er  andrerseits  selbst 
wiederum  sehr  bestimmt  auf  eine  Gegenwart  und  Imma- 
nenz  dieses  seines  himmlischen  Seyns  und  Waltens  in  seiner 
Person  hin,  wo  er  lehrend  und  nicht  aus  unmittelbarer 
Erfahrung  heraus  redete,  so  dass  wir  eine  wirkliche  Heva>6is, 
und  doch  zugleich  die  ht>76is,  ja  xp>J6li>  ohne  upvipn,  von  der 
gottlichen  86za  des  menschgewordenen  Gottessohnes  be- 
haupten  miissen  "  (pp.  69,  70).] 

The  EnglisJi  Essayist  keeps  clear  of  the  metaphysics  by 
which  the  German  theologian  endeavours  to  justify  the 
theory  of  a  double  life — that  is,  a  real  yet  relative  kenosis. 
He  simply  asserts  its  possibility  in  the  following  terms: 
''And  this  brings  me  to  the  supposed  metaphysical  con- 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  E.  423 

tradiction  in  the  fact  of  Incarnation,  which  I  used  to  think 
fatal.     That    difficulty    was,    that    an   infinite    being  could 
not  become  finite,  or  take  up  a  human  form,  except  as  a 
mere  simulated  appearance.     To  me  it  would  be  far  more 
painful  to  believe  in  the  unreality  of  Christ's  finite  nature 
and  human   condition,   than  to  give  up  Christianity  alto- 
gether; in  fact,  it  would  involve  giving  up  Christ  to  believe 
it   for  a   moment.     But    this    metaphysical    contradiction, 
which  once  seemed  so  formidable,  does  not  now  exist  for 
me  at  all.     That  the  Son  of  God,  even  though  eternal,  co- 
eternal  with  the  Father,  may  pass  through  any  changes 
through  which  any  derived  being  may  pass,  seems  unde- 
niable.    When  we  note  how  little  the  powers  which  we 
ourselves  possess,   and  which  seem  to  belong  to  us,   are 
identified  with  our  personality, — how,  by  a  stroke  of  paraly- 
sis, for  example,  a  man  of  genius  is  stripped  of  all  his  richest 
qualities  of  mind,  and  reduced  to  a  poor  solitary  Ego, — or, 
if  that  be  not  so,  how  he  lives  in  two  worlds,  in  one  of 
which  he  is  feeble,  helpless,  isolated  will,  and  in  the  other 
(if  there  be  another  in  which  he  is  still  his  old  self)  a  man 
of  genius  still, — when  we  note  this,  it  seems  to  me  to  be 
simply  the  most  presumptuous  of  all  presumptuous  assump- 
tions to  deny  that  the  Son  of  God  might  have  really  become 
what   He  seemed  to  be,  a  finite  being,  a  Jew  of  Jewish 
thought  and  prepossessions,  and  liable  to  all  the  intellec- 
tual errors  which  distinguished  the  world  in  which  He  lived. 
If  there  is  an  indestructible  moral  individuality  which  con- 
stitutes self,  which  is  the  same  when  wielding  the  largest 
powers  and  when  it  sits  alone  at  the  dark  centre,  which, 
for  anything  I  know,  may  even  live  under  a  double  set  of 
conditions  at  the  same  time,  I  can   see  no  metaphysical 
contradiction  in  the  Incarnation"  (pp.  259,  260).     Mr.  Hut- 
ton,    in    speaking    of   Christ's   temptation,    represents    His 
superiority  to  all  temptations  as  arising  out  of  the  predom- 
inant passion  of  His  will,  which  "  prevented  the  slightest 
trembling  in  the  balance"    (p.  261).     It  will  be  observed 
that  the  author  goes  a  considerable  length  in  the  assertion 
of  Christ's  ignorance,  making  Him  share  the  prejudices  of 
a  Jew  and  the  intellectual  errors  of  His  time.     The  state- 
ment of  opinion  here  does  not  seem  sufficiently  guarded 


424  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

Does  not  the  all-important  limit  without  sin  exclude  pre- 
judices into  which  a  moral  element  enters,  and  all  errors, 
even  intellectual  ones,  which  would  influence  conduct  ? 

Note  F.— Page  166. 

I  am  acquainted  with  the  theological  views  of  Zinzendorf 
only  through  J.  A.  Bengel's  Abriss  der  so genannten  Brilder- 
gemeine,  and  the  recently  published  work  of  Plitt,  Zinzen- 
dorf 's  Tlieologie  dargestcllt  von  D.  Hermann  Plitt,  Gotha 
1869-74.  In  the  first  volume  of  the  last-named  work  the 
author  gives  an  account  of  the  original  sound  doctrine  of 
Zinzendorf,  as  taught  by  him  during  the  period  1723-1742; 
in  the  second  he  gives  the  history  of  the  time  of  morbid 
malformations  in  Zinzendorf  s  doctrinal  system  (1743-1750); 
and  in  the  third  he  exhibits  that  system  in  its  restored  final 
form,  as  set  forth  in  works  published  between  1750  and 
1760.  Plitt  disputes  the  accuracy  of  the  representation 
given  by  Schneckenburger  and  others  of  the  Zinzendorfian 
Christology,  as  of  a  purely  metamorphic  character.  He 
admits,  of  course,  that  the  Christ  of  Zinzendorf,  especially 
during  the  second  period,  is  to  all  intents  and  purposes  a 
man  whose  Godhead,  far  from  being  apparent  to  others, 
was  for  the  most  part  hidden  from  Himself.  But  he  denies 
that  the  Zinzendorfian  Christ  is  one  who  has  ceased  to  be 
God,  and  quotes  passages  to  show  that  Zinzendorf  con- 
ceived of  the  Incarnation  as  the  assumption  of  a  human 
soul  with  a  body,  and  taught  an  indissoluble  hypostatic 
union  of  the  humanity  so  assumed  and  the  Godhead.  He 
thinks  that  the  idea  present  to  Zinzendorfs  mind  was,  that 
in  the  Incarnation  an  intimate  union  was  freely  formed  by 
the  divine  Ego  with  a  human  soul,  and  through  it  with  a 
body,  in  virtue  of  which  the  God-man  in  the  ground  of  His 
faeing  continued  to  be  God,  but  completed  His  collective 
outward  and  inward  life  in  human  form.  Therein  was  in- 
volved not  an  essential  and  central,  but  a  modal  peripheral 
alteration  of  His  Godhead.  [In  Zinzendorfs  own  words: 
Ji  Der  Heiland  hat  von  seinen  Schatzen  und  Herrlichkeiten, 
die  er  als  Sohn  und  rechtmassiger  Besitzer  rov  itdv  hatte, 
schon  disponirt,  da  er  seine  Gottheit  verlassen  hat  bei  dei 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  F.  425 

xivco6ii,  beim  Hingang  in  die  Zeit,  in  der  Mutter  Leib  als 
das  erste  Grab.  Sie  blieben  ein  depositum  in  der  Hand  des 
Vater,  sowie  er  hernach  am  Kreutze  seine  Seele  auch 
deponirte  bis  zur  Wiedervereinigung  mit  der  menschlichen 
Hulle"  (ii.  p.  166).]  The  kenosis  is  here  asserted  in  strong 
terms;  yet  Zinzendorf  guards  himself  against  a  view  of  the 
kenosis  which  excludes  the  Unto  hypostatica,  as  when  he 
says:  "  In  the  kenosis  the  reference  is  not  to  the  inhesive 
divinity,  zoo  Beia>:  He  was  God  throughout.  One  cannot 
conceive  of  a  finger,  hair,  or  morsel  of  skin  which  stood  not 
in  a  unione  hypostatica  with  His  Godhead."  ["  Die  Rede 
ist  bei  der  Kenosis  nicht  von  seiner  inhasiven  Gottlichkeit, 
tgd  Qeicq:  er  ist  Gott  gewesen  alle  Augenblicke.  Man  kann 
sichkeinen  Finger,  kein  Harlein,kein  Hautlein  vom  Heilande 
concipiren,  das  nicht  in  einer  unione  hypostatica  mit  seiner 
Gottheit  stiinde  "  (ii.  p.  166).]  Plitt  cites  one  passage  in 
which  Zinzendorf  seems  inclined  even  to  entertain  the 
idea  of  a  double  life  of  the  Logos,  one  of  passivity  of  qui- 
escence in  the  man  Jesus,  and  one  of  full  activity  in  relation 
to  the  world.  [The  words  are:  "  Es  ware  fur  den  Schopfer 
der  Welt  nicht  zu  viel  wenn  er  zugleich  die  ganze  Welt 
regiert  hatte  und  ware  zugleich  Zimmermann  in  Nazaret 
gewesen.  Denn  es  ist  bekannt,  dass  es  Leute  gibt,  die 
zugleich  schreiben  und  dictiren  und  zugleich  horen  konnen  " 
(ii.  p.  174).]  The  truth  appears  to  be,  that  Zinzendorf  had 
tio  carefully  thought  out  consistent  theory  of  Christ's  per- 
son, but  expressed  himself  in  strong  unqualified  language 
on  whatever  aspects  of  the  subject  were  congenial  to  his 
religious  feelings,  and  so  gave  utterance  to  views  not  easily 
reconcilable  with  each  other,  and  referable  to  different 
types  of  the  kenotic  theory.  Plitt  remarks:  "  Ontologically 
and  psychologically  considered,  Zinzendorf  is  not  the  ade- 
quate representative  of  his  own  fundamental  views  (Grund- 
anschauung).  But  we  know  that  properly  speculative  ques- 
tions are  not  his  affair,  and  that  escapade  (Auschreitung, 
i.e.  the  double  life  of  the  Logos),  in  a  psychological  respect, 
is  only  a  hasty  thought  thrown  out  hypothetically  as  a  meta- 
physical possibility  which  he  has  no  wish  to  make  his  own  " 
(ii.  p.  174).  The  kenosis  seems  to  have  been  conceived  by 
Zinzendorf  habitually  as  absolute,  not  relative,   as  in  the 


426  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

following  passage:  "  kxevaxjsv  iavr6v\  with  His  whole  heart 
He  disengaged  Himself  from  the  work  and  activity  of  His 
proper  Godhead,  when  He  had  to  enter,  and  wished  to 
enter,  into  time.  He  delivered  over  to  His  Father  the 
government  of  the  world  so  heartily,  so  directly,  so plenarie, 
that  all  things  whereof  He  was  the  sole  Lord  and  Master 
appeared  to  Him  when  on  earth  not  otherwise  than  as  His 
Father's  business  .  .  .  and  He  had  received  all  out  of  His 
Father's  hand,  into  which  He  had  Himself  previously 
placed  all  "  ["  kuivoo6Ev  iavrov;  er  hat  sich  von  ganzen  Herz- 
en,  da  er  in  die  Zeit  gehen  sollte  und  gehen  wollte,  von  der 
Wirkung  und  Activitat  seiner  eigenen  Gottheit  losgesagt. 
Er  hatte  seinem  Vater  das  Regiment  liber  die  Welt  so 
herzlich,  so  gerade,  so  ptenarie  iibertragen,  dass  alle  Dinge, 
davon  er  doch  allein  der  Herr  und  Meister  war,  zu  der  Zeit, 
da  er  auf  Erden  wandelte,  ihm  nicht  anders  vorgekommen 
sind,  als  seines  Vaters  Geschafte.  .  .  und  er  Alles  aus 
seines  Vaters  Hand  genommen  hat,  in  die  er  zuvor  Alles 
erst  selbst  gestellet  hat  "  (ii.  p.  172).]  How  complete  the 
kenosis  was  in  Zinzendorf's  view  may  be  gathered  from 
such  a  statement  as  this,  that  as  the  man  Jesus  Christ  was 
ignorant  of  all  sorts  of  things,  He,  at  least  at  times,  did  not 
know,  or  had  it  not  present  to  His  thoughts,  that  He  was 
God  (ii.  p.  172).  Also  from  the  graphic  descriptions  given 
of  the  psychological  life  and  human  development  of  Jesus 
as  a  boy,  a  youth,  and  a  man;  and  in  His  various  relations 
to  the  Jewish  hierarchy,  the  political  authorities,  and  so- 
ciety; and  in  His  work  as  Redeemer.  As  a  child,  Jesus 
was  a  diligent  scholar,  and  got  His  head  filled  with  Bible 
texts,  but  also  with  much  Rabbinical  rubbish;  for  He  was 
no  spiritus  particidaris,  He  had  a  spiritus  universalis  cathol- 
iats;  He  was  a  man  who  from  earliest  childhood  practised 
obedience,  and  whose  work  was  not  to  inquire  whether  His 
parents  or  the  Rabbis  in  Nazareth  were  right  or  wrong. 
["  Er  war  von  einer  viel  zu  simplen  Art  und  ordinairem 
Naturell,  als  dass  er  sich  sollte  die  Miihe  gegeben  haben,  in 
seiner  Vorfahren  Anordnung  zu  storen,  zu  raffiniren,  und 
zu  scrupuliren,  oder  objectiones  gegen  seine  Anfuhrer  zu 
machen;  sondern  ich  glaube  von  Herzen,  was  sie  ihm 
vorgelegt  haben  zu  lernen  das  hat  er  gelernt."]     But  the 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  F.  427 

Holy  Spirit  helped  Him,  expounding  the  true  to  Him, 
making  Him  forget  the  superfluous,  gathering  for  Him  the 
quintessence,  aumni  ex  stercore,  and  writing  it  on  His  heart 
(ii.  pp.  175,  176).  The  description  of  the  Temptation  is 
very  graphic.  Jesus  had  been  weakened  in  body  and  mind 
by  forty  days'  fasting,  so  that  "  when  Satan  came  upon 
Him  with  all  his  angelic  power  and  panurgy,  the  Saviour 
was  directly,  as  we  say,  a  man  without  head,  did  not  know 
where  His  head  stood,  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  whose  foster- 
child  and  Jesulein  (little  Jesus)  He  was,  had  to  suggest  to 
Him  at  the  moment  three  little  words,  which  might  meet 
the  exigencies  of  the  hour."  ["  Da  der  Satan  ihm  mit 
aller  seiner  Engelskraft  und  Panurgie  auf  den  Hals  trat, 
der  Heiland  gerade,  wie  man  redt,  ein  Mensch  ohne  Kopf 
sein,  nicht  mehr  hat  wissen  sollen,  wo  ihm  der  Kopf  steht, 
und  der  heilige  Geist,  dessen  Pflegekind  und  Jesulein  er  wai. 
ihm  zu  der  Stunde  hat  miissen  drei  Spruchelchen  einfallen 
lassen,  die  da  haben  ausrichten  konnen,  was  zu  der  Stunde 
auszurichten  war  "  (ii.  p.  183).]  Even  in  working  miracle* 
— as  in  raising  Lazarus — the  human  weakness  of  Jesus  ap- 
pears. The  rising  of  Lazarus  was,  according  to  Zinzendorf. 
the  only  instance  of  bringing  a  dead  person  back  to  life 
Therefore,  when  Jesus  learned  that  Lazarus  was  dead  and 
buried- — therefore  really  dead, — He  was  troubled  in  spirit 
(lest  He  should  not  be  able  to  raise  him).  Arrived  at  the 
grave,  He  prayed,  "as  a  child  can  pray  now,  a  prayer 
which  sounded  like  the  answers  which  He  had  given  in  the 
desert  and  on  the  pinnacle  of  the  temple.  All  ordinary 
authority,  all  His  cheerful  manner  ceased;  He  behaved 
quite  humanly,  and  as  one  quite  disheartened.  He  might 
also  mark  that  that  was  His  last  miracle,  and  that  the 
wickedness  of  the  people  would  become  so  great  over  the 
present  miracle  that  it  would  certainly  cost  Him  His  life. 
The  full  status  exinanitionis  was  therefore  there.  And 
when  the  deed  was  done,  and  the  dead  man  raised,  and 
God  had  heard  Him,  He  went  away  at  length  to  His  own 
predestined  death,  with  passion-  and  death-fear."  ["Wie 
ein  Kind  beten  kann  heutzutage,  ein  Gebet,  das  naturlich 
klang,  wie  die  Antworten,  die  er  in  der  Wusten  und  auf  der 
Zinne  des  Tempels  gegeben.     Alle  gewohnliche  Autoritat. 


428  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

alle  seine  muntere  Art  cessirte,  es  ging  ganz  menschlich  zu 
ganz  kleinlaut.  Er  mochte  auch  merken,  dass  das  sei-n 
letztes  Wunder  sein  und  die  Bosheit  der  Leute  so  gross 
werden  wiirde  liber  dem  itzigen  Wunder,  dass  es  ihm  nun 
gevviss  sein  Leben  kosten  wiirde.  Es  war  also  der  voile 
status  exinanitonis  da.  Und  da  es  nun  geschehen  war,  und 
er  den  Todten  auferweckt,  und  Gott  ihn  erhort  hatte,  so 
ging  er  endlich  an  seinen  bestimmten  Tod  mit  Liedens- 
und  Todesfurcht  "  (ii.  p.  184).] 

Note  G.— Page  169. 

Cyril  refers  to  the  metamorphic  theory  of  the  Incarnation 
in  his  work  Adverstis  Nestorium,  lib.  i.  cap.  i. ,  where  he 
expresses  the  opinion,  to  put  it  briefly,  that  kenosis  in  the 
metamorphic  sense,  or  in  the  sense  of  dopotentiation,  is 
excluded  by  the  skenosis.  Having  quoted  John  i.  14,  he 
says:  "The  Word  became  flesh,  manifesting  the  power  of 
the  true  union,  that,  of  course,  which  is  conceived  xaQ' 
vit66xa6iv;  but  because  He  also  says  that  He  sojourned 
among  us,  He  does  not  allow  us  to  think  of  the  Logos,  by 
nature  from  God,  as  passing  over  into  earth-born  flesh.  I 
fancy  an  ill-instructed  person  might  think  that  the  divine 
uncreated  nature  was  susceptible  of  change,  and  could  part 
with  its  essential  properties  and  be  transformed  into  some- 
thing different  from  what  it  is,  and  by  alterations  be 
subjected  to  the  measures  of  the  creature."  ["2«'p«a«iv 
e'q>t]  toy  Xoyov,  rrji  dXtj^ovi  svoodsaoi,  8fjXov  Se  oti  viji  xaV  vnd6ra.6iv 
voovuivrji,  £/u<paviXoov  rrjv  Svvauiv  Sid  Si  tov  xai  kv  p/ulv  avzdv 
6xr)v<S6ai  Xe'ysiv,  ovx  eq>irj6i  voelv  e£?  ddpxa  tt}v  and  yr}$  tov  £h 
Qeov  xctTd  cpvdiv  jnsTaxoopi}dai  Xoyov.  ' ' Ch'firj  juev  dv  oif.iai,  tiS  tqov 
ov  Xi'av  r/xpifiaaxoToov  o  ri  itoxi  16tiv  t?  Oeia  te  xai  yswr/Tov  navToi 
krtEHEiva  q>v6iS,  ra'^a  itov  xai  TpoTtijS  sivai  SsxTixrjv  avTJjv,  xat 
xa.Tapq.fjvufjo'ai  uev  Svva60ai  tgov  iSioov,  xai  ov6iooS<Si  avzrj  npo<5- 
TtEcpvxoToov  dyaSaov,  /uETacpvvai  Si  <Z6n£p  eU  ETEpov  ti,  nap  oitsp 
16ti,  xai  Toii  tt}?  XTi6eooi  iyxa0ix£6rjai  UETpois,  dXXoioo6E6i,  xai  UEza- 

fioXats  ddox^TOJi  vnsvt}vEyjxevriv.,''~\  But  this  is  impossible,  the 
evangelist  testifies  when  he  says:  "  The  Logos  tabernacled 
among  us,  although  become  flesh."  \k6xrjvoo6Ev  kv  f/iilv  xaiTox 
6dp\  ysyovcoi  b  Xoyoi.]     Cyril  discusses  the  same  question  at 


Appendix. — Lecture  IV. — Note  G.  429 

greater  length  in  his  tract  Adv.  Anthropomorphitas .  The 
views  against  which  he  argues  in  that  work  are  similar  to 
those  of  Gess,  that  the  Logos  took  only  flesh  and  was 
Himself  in  place  of  a  human  soul  (c.  xv.);  that  He  emptied 
the  heavens  of  His  divinity  when  He  became  man  (ksvovs 
tt}S  iavzov  6eor?jroS  dq>r}xE  zovS  ovpavovi,  C.  xix.);  that  Christ 
could  sin,  because  He  was  made  in  the  likeness  of  men,  c 
xxiii.  In  c.  xviii.  of  this  treatise,  Cyril  discusses  at  some 
length  another  form  of  the  kenotic  theory,  viz.  that  the 
Son,  as  to  the  dignity  of  His  divinity,  was  still  with  the 
Father  when  He  became  man  and  was  on  the  earth;  but 
that,  as  to  His  hypostasis,  He  was  not  [Kekevooto  ydp  ndda, 
w?  avroi  qxxtfi,  xai  vioriHr/  vTt66ra6iS  eh  te  rdov  ovpavdov,  nod  avrcSv 

zwv  TtazpiHcov  k6\tiqov~\.  In  the  former  form  of  the  theory 
the  kenosis  affects  both  nature  and  person  of  the  Logos;  in 
the  latter,  the  person  only. 


LECTURE  VI. 

Note  A.— Page  263. 

THE  question  has  been  discussed  by  writers  on  Chris- 
tology,  whether  Christ  had  any  particular  temperament. 
The  advocates  of  the  ideality  of  Christ's  humanity,  whether 
those  who  believe  Christ  to  be  more  than  man,  or  only  man, 
agree  in  answering  the  question  in  the  negative.  Thus 
Ebrard  maintains  that  the  pleromatic  man  was,  on  the  one 
hand,  endowed  with  all  natural  as  well  as  spiritual  gifts, 
though  these  gifts  might  not  be  all  developed,  His  vooation 
not  requiring  it ;  and  on  the  other,  was  free  from  all  one-sided- 
ness  of  endowment,  and  also  of  temperament  {Dogmatik,  ii. 
23).  Martensen,  to  the  same  effect,  remarks:  "  As  every  man 
has  in  his  temperament  for  his  development  not  only  a  sup- 
porting foundation,  but  a  confining  limit,  it  belongs  to  the 
sinlessness  of  the  second  Adam  that  He  is  not  bound  in 
the  sinful  one-sidedness  of  temperament,  as  it  belongs  to 
His  ideal  perfection  that  no  single  temperament  can  be 
regarded  as  predominating  in  Him.  We  find  in  the  new 
Adam,  as  well  the  careless  light  mind,  which  lets  every 
day  have  its  own  trouble,  who  is  unconcerned  as  the  lily  in 
the  field  and  the  bird  under  the  heaven,  as  also  the  deep 
pain-fraught  sensibility,  out  of  whose  inmost  heart,  in  a 
much  wider  sense  than  out  of  the  old  prophet,  the  com- 
plaint resounds:  '  Where  is  there  a  sorrow  like  my  sorrow  ?' 
We  find  in  Him,  as  well  the  quiet  spirit  unmoved  by  the 
world,  as  the  powerfully-stirred,  vehement,  and  zealous 
spirit,  while  none  of  these  contrasts  is  perverted  into  one- 
sidedness  "  {Dogmatik,  p.  259).  Liebner  takes  a  similar 
view  {Christologic,  p.  315).     On  the  other  hand,  Keim  finds 


Appendix. — Lectttre    VI. — Note  A.  431 

in  the  gospel  records  clear  traces  of  individual  idiosyncrasy. 
He  ascribes  to  Jesus  a  combination  of  the  choleric,  san- 
guine, and  melancholic  temperaments,  and  regards  Him  in 
this  combination  as  a  genuine  Jew,  a  Jew  of  the  strongest 
southern  melancholy  type.  ["  In  der  Wahrnehmungslust 
ein  Sanguiniker,  im  Feuereifer  ein  Choleriker,  in  Beidem 
ein  achter  Galilaer,  ist  er  durch  seinen  Frommigkeitszug, 
wie  er  ihn  durch  Erziehung  anlernte  und  von  Natur  immer 
schon  im  Vollmass  besass,  ein  achtester  Jude  schlechthin, 
ja  ein  Jude  vom  kraftigsten  sudlichen  melancholischen 
Typus  gewesen  "]  (Geschichte  Jesu,  Dritte  Bearbeitung, 
1873,  pp.  Ill,  112).  Of  the  melancholy  religious  disposi- 
tion, Keim  finds  proof  in  the  love  of  solitude  and  of  re- 
ligious devotion.  He  discovers  no  trace  of  the  phlegmatic 
temperament  (vid.  Jesu  von  Nasara,  i.  442).  It  is  proba- 
bly not  advisable  to  enter  into  minute  discussions  on  such  a 
question;  but  I  confess  I  see  no  evidence  in  the  gospel  of  that 
generalized  humanity  which  the  advocates  of  the  Ideal  Man 
theory  are  so  fond  of  ascribing  to  Jesus.  I  see  in  Him  traces 
of  a  strongly  marked,  though  not  one-sided,  individuality — 
poetry,  passion,  intensity,  vehemence,  all  that  gives  pathos, 
power,  and  human  interest  to  character,  even  humour  not 
excepted.  Generally  speaking,  the  reality,  not  the  ideality, 
of  the  humanity  is  the  thing  that  lies  on  the  surface;  although 
the  latter  is  not  to  be  denied,  nor  the  many-sidedness  which 
is  adduced  in  proof  of  it  by  Martensen  and  others. 

Note  B. — Page  268. 

In  the  text  I  have  made  no  reference  to  the  views  enter- 
tained on  the  subject  of  the  flesh  by  those  whose  theolog- 
ical opinions  are  controlled  by  a  naturalistic  philosophy. 
I  propose  to  give  a  brief  account  and  criticism  of  these  in 
this  note.  Theologians  of  this  school,  then,  bluntly  deny 
the  possibility  of  a  real,  thoroughgoing  experience  of 
temptation  without  the  presence  in  the  flesh  of  sinful  pro- 
clivity. They  maintain  that  such  sinful  proclivity  did  exist 
in  Christ's  flesh,  and  that  to  teach  anything  else  is  to  give 
a  doketic  view  of  His  humanity,  in  this  agreeing  with  the 
Adoptianists,  Menken  and  Irving.     They  maintain  further, 


432  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

and  in  this  they  go  beyond  the  theologians  just  referred  to, 
that  sinful  proclivity  is  inseparable  from  the  flesh,  is  nc 
mere  accident  of  the/rt//,  but  an  essential  characteristic  of 
the  6dpi.  In  fact,  they  do  not  believe  in  a  fall  at  all,  or  in 
any  change  in  the  physical  constitution  of  human  nature. 
They  regard  the  "  fall  "  as  a  fiction  of  church  theology, 
arrived  at  by  an  illegitimate  combination  of  Paul's  doctrine 
concerning  the  6dpi  in  the  7th  chapter  of  Romans  with  his 
doctrine  of  sin  coming  into  the  world  through  Adam  in 
the  5th.  The  true  origin  of  sin  is  the  proclivity  to  sin  in- 
herent in  the  flesh;  it  was  this  that  gave  rise  to  sin  in 
Adam,  it  is  this  which  gives  rise  to  sin  in  all  men.  When 
it  said  that  sin  came  into  the  world  through  Adam, 
it  is  merely  meant  that  he  was  the  first  person  in  whom 
the  sinful  propensity  of  the  6dpi  manifested  itself.  This 
doctrine  of  the  inherent  sinful  proclivity  of  the  6dpi  it  is 
maintained,  is  the  doctrine  taught  in  the  New  Testament, 
and  especially  in  the  Epistles  of  [Paul.  In  this  opinion 
Baur,  Pfleiderer,  and  Holsten  concur.  In  proof,  Baur  points 
to  the  peculiar  phrase  employed  by  Paul  to  describe  our 
Lord's  humanity  in  Rom.  viii.  3:  "  God  sending  His  Son  in 
the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh"  {iv  6/uoioojuan  6apx6i  djuapnai), 
which  he  says  is  an  attempt  to  cover  an  antinomy  between 
the  sinlessness  of  Christ's  character  and  the  sinfulness  in- 
separable from  corporeal  life.  Even  Christ's  flesh  was  sinful, 
but  reverence  would  not  permit  Paul  to  say  so;  therefore,  in- 
stead of  saying  in  the  flesh  of  sin,  he  adopts  the  milder  phrase: 
"in  the  likeness  of  the  flesh  of  sin;  "  so  saving  Christ's  per- 
sonal holiness  by  the  adoption  of  a  virtually  doketic  view  of 
His  humanity  ( Vorlesungcn  iiber  neiitestamentlicJie  Theologie, 
p.  189).  Pfleiderer  seeks  to  prove  the  same  position  by  laying 
stress  on  the  epithet  6dpuivoi  in  Rom.  vii.  14.  Assuming 
that  adjectives  in  ivos  always  denote  the  material  out  of  which 
anything  is  made,  he  interprets  the  passage  thus:  I  am 
made  of  flesh,  I  have  a  material  body,  therefore  I  am  sold 
under  sin.  That  is,  man  is  6apHix6s,  opposed  to  good  in 
his  life  tendency,  because  he  is  6dpKivos;  that  is,  "  because 
he  has  flesh-matter  for  His  substance,  in  the  fact  of  his 
being  physically  flesh  lies  the  inevitable  ground  of  his 
moral  fleshliness  "  (Paulinismus,  p.  56).     Pfleiderer  agrees 


Appe?idix. — Lecture   VI. — Note  B.  433 

with  Baur  in  the  interpretation  of  the  phrase  already  quoted 
from  Rom.  viii.,  finding  in  it  traces  of  one  of  the  antinomies 
with  which  Paulinism  abounds.  And  along  with  this,  it  is 
interesting  to  note,  goes  a  construction  put  by  him  and 
others  of  the  same  school  on  the  death  of  Christ,  similar  to 
that  given  by  the  Adoptianists  and  Irving.  Christ's  death 
was  the  crucifixion  of  His  own  sinful  flesh,  and  by  way 
of  type  and  first-fruits,  of  the  sinful  flesh  of  His  people. 
The  condemnation  of  sin  in  the  flesh,  spoken  of  in  Rom. 
viii.  3,  signifies  the  judicial  execution  of  sin  as  centred  in 
Christ's  own  flesh.  Holsten  expresses  similar  views  in  his 
work,  Zum  Evangelium  dies  Petrus  und  des  Paulus. 

Now  there  arc  several  facts  which  raise  a  strong  pre- 
sumption against  the  truth  of  this  Manichaean  interpre- 
tation of  Paul's  teaching  on  the  subject  of  the  flesh.  In  the 
first  place,  it  is  decidedly  un- Hebrew.  Secondly,  accord- 
ing to  this  theory  the  flesh  must  be  regarded  as  unsancti- 
fiable,  whereas  in  Paul's  Epistles  it  is  not  so  regarded. 
Sometimes,  indeed,  it  might  seem  as  if  the  apostle  did 
regard  the  flesh  as  hopelessly  evil,  as  when  he  speaks  of 
killing  the  deeds  of  the  body,  and  in  the  phrase:  "  this 
body  of  death."  But  in  other  places  the  body  is  represented 
as  the  subject  of  sanctification  not  less  than  the  soul  or 
spirit,  as  in  I  Cor.  vi.,  where  the  body  is  called  the  temple 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  it  is  set  forth  as  a  duty  arising 
directly  out  of  the  consciousness  of  redemption  to  glorify 
God  in  the  body;  and  in  2  Cor.  vii.  1,  in  which  it  is  set  forth 
as  a  Christian  duty  to  cleanse  ourselves  from  all  filthiness 
of  the  flesh  and  spirit — the  same  need  and  the  same  pos- 
sibility of  sanctification  being  implied  in  both  cases.  In 
proof  that  this  text  bears  against  the  theory  of  the  essential 
sinfulness  of  the  flesh  being  Pauline,  it  may  be  mentioned 
that  Holsten  disputes  its  genuineness,  the  whole  passage 
from  vi.  14  to  vii.  1  being,  he  thinks,  foreign  to  the  Pauline 
mode  of  thought  {Zum  Evangel,  p.  387).  Yet,  again, 
against  this  Manichaean  interpretation  is  the  consideration 
that  such  a  doctrine,  teaching  a  dualistic  opposition  be- 
tween flesh  and  spirit,  and  implying  that  the  flesh,  as  dis- 
•  inct  from  the  spirit,  is  essentially  evil,  ought  to  be  accom- 
panied by  a  pagan  Eschatology,   that  is,  by  the   doctrine 


434  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

that  the  life  after  death  will  be  a  purely  spiritual  disem- 
bodied one.  Such,  however,  was  not  the  view  of  Paul;  the 
object  of  his  hope  being  not  the  immortality  of  the  naked 
soul,  but  the  immortality  of  man,  body  and  soul,  implying 
a  resurrection  of  the  dead, — a  noteworthy  fact,  whatever 
difficulties  may  beset  the  distinction  taken  by  Paul  between 
the  natural  body  and  the  spiritual  body. 

The  exegetical  argument  in  support  of  the  interpretation  in 
question  is  by  no  means  unassailable.  Granting  that  6dpxivos 
in  Rom.  vii.  14  means  fleshy,  "  of  flesh,"  not  carnal  in  the 
ethical  sense,  the  text  does  not  necessarily  mean  every 
man  who  possesses  a  material  organism  is  inevitably  a  slave 
to  sin.  We  can  assign  a  definite  meaning  to  6dpxivoz  with- 
out going  that  length,  and  that  whether  we  take  the 
sentence  as  containing  a  personal  statement  about  Paul 
himself,  or  as  a  statement  about  humanity  at  large,  per- 
sonal in  form,  universal  in  scope.  Take  it  as  a  personal 
statement,  we  can  easily  see  why  Paul  should  here  prefer 
tidpxivoz  to  6apxix6i.  The  latter  epithet  conveys  the  idea 
of  a  man  whose  whole  character  and  conduct  are  under  the 
dominion  of  the  fleshly  mind.  But  he  could  not  consist- 
ently characterize  himself  thus,  and  at  the  same  time  rep- 
resent himself  as  he  does  immediately  after  as  with  his 
mind  serving  the  law  of  God.  He  must  divide  himself  into 
two  parts,  vous  and  6d.pi,  and  indicate  distinctly  the  side  of 
his  double  self  on  which  he  is  open  to  the  influence  of  evil. 
This  he  does  by  the  use  of  6apxivoz.  It  is  as  if  he  had  said: 
I  am  vovs  voijriHoi,  and  so  far  I  am  on  the  side  of  good;  but 
I  am  also  6dpi,  6dpHivo$,  and  on  that  side  of  my  nature  I  am 
on  the  side  of  evil.  The  statement  certainly  implies  that 
for  some  reason  or  other  the  6dp\  has  an  evil  bias,  but  it 
conveys  no  hint  as  to  the  cause  of  this  bias.  It  is  a  fact  of 
consciousness,  not  a  philosophico-anthropological  doctrine 
that  is  enunciated.  Take  the  statement,  again,  as  a  univer- 
sal one,  the  I  who  speaks  being  not  the  individual  ego  of 
Paul,  but  the  ego  of  the  race:  in  this  case  also  we  can  see 
the  appropriateness  of  the  term  6dpxivoz  as  serving  to  give 
universality  to  the  proposition.  It  may  be  or  it  may  not 
be  true  of  every  man  that  he  is  6apxix6s,  ca.ma.\\y-minded — 
that  is  a  proposition  to  be  proved,  not  assumed;  but  it  is 


Appendix. — Lecture   VI. — Note  B.  435 

certainly  true  of  every  man  that  he  is  6dpuivos.  And  this 
being  certain,  it  is  further  certain  that  every  man  is  more 
or  less  in  bondage  to  sin.  That  seems  to  be  what  Paul 
means  to  convey  in  this  verse.  It  is  in  effect  a  syllogism. 
Wherever  there  is  flesh  there  is  sin;  I  am  partaker  of  flesh, 
therefore  I  am  under  law  to  sin.  But  does  this  syllogism 
imply  a  metaphysical  doctrine,  to  the  effect  that  flesh, 
organized  matter,  from  its  own  inherent  nature  involves  for 
all  associated  with  it  enslavement  to  sin  ?  No;  it  implies 
that  sinful  bias  is  universal  in  the  human  race,  but  not  that 
it  is  absolutely  necessary.  The  categories  of  universality 
and  necessity  are  not  co-extensive.  After  it  has  been 
ascertained  that  as  a  matter  of  fact  sinful  bias  inheres  in 
human  nature  viewed  as  ensouled  flesh,  all  the  world  over, 
it  remains  to  be  determined  whence  comes  this  universal 
bias.  It  may  arise  from  the  nature  of  matter,  or  it  may  be 
an  accident,  a  vice  of  nature,  introduced  at  a  given  time, 
and  transmitted  by  inheritance.  Both  of  these  explanations 
have  been  given,  and  we  are  not  entitled  to  assume  that 
either  of  them  is,  as  a  matter  of  course,  the  correct  one. 

Passing  now  to  the  other  text,  Rom.  viii.  3.  With  refer- 
ence to  the  phrase:  kv  ouok&ju.  6.  d.,  there  are  two  questions 
— (1)  Is  the  emphasis  to  be  laid  on  the  likeness  or  on  the 
implied  unlikeness  ?  (2)  Do  the  words  6dpi  duapria?  con- 
stitute a  single  idea,  implying  that  sin  is  an  essential  at- 
tribute of  the  flesh,  or  are  they  separable,  so  that  duapriai 
points  at  an  accidental,  though  it  maybe  universal,  property 
of  the  6dpi  ?  As  to  the  former,  the  implied  unlikeness  is 
regarded  as  the  thing  to  be  emphasized  by  Baur,  Zeller, 
and  Hilgenfeld,  and  the  interpretation  they  put  on  the 
clause  is,  that  Paul  regarded  sin  as  an  essential  property 
of  flesh  (thus  making  6dpi  df-iapriaz  a  single  idea);  but  he 
hesitated  to  ascribe  to  Christ  sinful  flesh,  and  therefore  said 
not  that  Christ  was  made  sinful  flesh,  but  that  He  was  made 
in  the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh,  implying  likeness  in  all  re- 
spects, sin  excepted.  Others,  among  whom  may  be  specially 
mentioned  Ludemann  (Die  Anthropologic  des  Ap.  Paulus), 
agreeing  with  the  fore-mentioned  writers  in  taking  6dpi 
d/uaprias  as  one  idea,  differ  from  them  in  regard  to  Smoigj/u., 
emphasizing  not  the  unlikeness,  but  the  likeness,  and  hold- 


436  The  H7imiliatio7i  of  Christ. 

ing  that  it  is  Paul's  purpose  boldly  to  teach  that  God 
furnished  His  Son  with  a  flesh  made  exactly  like  ours,  in 
this  special  respect  that  it,  too,  was  a  flesh  of  sin.  Not 
that  Liidemann  means  to  say  that  Paul  did  not  believe  in 
the  sinlessness  of  Christ.  He  contends  that  this  does  not 
follow,  and  that  there  is  no  antinomy  involved,  such  as 
Pfleiderer  asserts.  For  though  duapria  was  immanent  in 
the  flesh  of  Christ,  as  in  that  of  other  men,  it  was  only 
objective  sin,  not  subjective — it  never  came  to  napdfiatiis; 
it  was  prevented  from  doing  so  by  the  ayiov  nvev/xa,  who 
guided  all  Christ's  conduct,  and  kept  the  flesh  in  perfect 
subjection.  A  third  class  of  interpreters,  such  as  Weiss 
and  Hofmann,  follow  the  old  orthodox  view,  which  treats 
6d.p\  and  duapria  as  expressive  of  separable  ideas,  and  take 
oMoiaJjua  as  implying  a  limitation  of  likeness  in  respect  of 
the  sinfulness  of  ordinary  human  nature.  Now,  none  of  these 
three  interpretations  is  exegetically  self-evident.  They  are 
all  exegetically  admissible,  and  our  decision  must  turn  upon 
other  considerations.  I  may  observe  that,  assuming  Baur's 
view  of  ev  6/iioiayju.  to  be  correct,  it  is  an  argument  in  favour 
of  the  separability  of  <sdp\  and  duapria.  For  why  should  it  be 
assumed  that  the  motive  of  the  limitation  is  mere  shrinking 
in  reverence  from  applying  a  principle  to  Christ  which  is 
firmly  held  by  the  writer  as  a  necessary  truth  ?  If  Paul 
believed  that  where  pdp%  is  there  must  be  sin,  duapria  at 
least,  if  not  napdfiaGu,  would  he,  whose  general  habit  of 
thinking  was  so  bold,  have  hesitated  to  ascribe  it  to  Christ 
also;  would  he  not  rather  have  done  what  Liidemann  says 
he  has  done,  viz.  ascribed  to  Christ's  flesh  duapria,  and  then 
sought  to  guard  His  personal  sinlessness  by  emphasizing 
the  indwelling  of  the  Divine  Spirit  as  the  means  of  pre- 
venting duapria,  sin  objective,  from  breaking  out  into  itapd- 
(5a6i%,  sin  subjective  ?  Surely  he  was  more  likely  to  do  this 
than  to  adopt  the  weak  expedient  of  covering  over  a  diffi- 
culty with  a  word. 

But  this  view  of  Liidemann's  has  its  own  peculiar  weak- 
nesses, which  appear  most  clearly  in  connection  with  the 
doctrine  of  the  Atonement,  which  naturally  goes  along 
with  it — that  already  referred  to  in  connection  with  the 
name   of  Pfleiderer,    the   theory   of  Redemption  by  sample 


Appendix. — Lecture    VI. — -Note  C.  437 

It  is  a  theory  very  open  to  criticism.  First,  if  the  djuaprzj 
in  Christ's  flesh  was  a  thing  which  could  be  completely 
kept  under  by  the  holy  will  of  Christ,  was  it  not  morally 
insignificant,  therefore  not  calling  for  judicial  condem- 
nation ?  Is  there  not  something  theatrical  in  this  pouring 
out  of  divine  wrath  on  the  flesh  of  Christ  for  the  objective 
dfiapria  latent  therein  ?  Then,  how  is  this  judicial  condem- 
nation of  duapria  in  Christ's  flesh  to  be  made  available  for 
us,  in  the  way  of  keeping  the  vicious  bias  of  our  flesh  from 
breaking  out  into  napdfia6iz  ?  The  communication  of  that 
Holy  Spirit  which  helped  Christ  to  be  sinless  would  give 
us  real  assistance,  but  is  it  not  apparent  how  that  judicial 
execution  of  the  Redeemer's  sinful  6dpi  will.  We  may  say 
to  ourselves:  in  that  death  my  flesh  was  crucified,  but  this 
mystic  faith  will  not  help  us  here.  The  faith-mysticism 
acts  on  the  imagination  and  the  heart  powerfully,  but 
hardly  on  the  6dpi,.  It  remains  as  obstinately  opposed  as 
ever  to  all  good,  for  anything  that  the  condemnation  on 
Calvary  effected.  Instead  of  faith-mysticism  we  must  have 
recourse  to  sacramental  magic,  and  say  that  in  the  Lord's 
Supper  the  Lord's  resurrection-body,  purged  from  duapria 
by  the  fire  of  the  Cross,  passes  into  our  bodies,  and  becomes 
there  a  transforming  influence.  That  seems  the  only  way 
open,  and  it  was  the  way  which  Irving's  adventurous  spirit 
took  in  carrying  out  his  pet  theory.  On  the  biblical  mean- 
ing of  the  term  6dp%,  the  reader  may  consult  Laidlaw  on 
the  Bible  Doctrine  of  Man,  Cunningham  Lectures,  7th  series. 

Note  C— Page  282. 

Faustus  Socinus  expresses  his  views  on  this  point  in  his 
famous  Dispntatio  De  Jesit  Christo  Servatore,  pars  ii.  caput 
xxiii.  The  heading  of  the  chapter  is  as  follows:  Ostenditur, 
Christum  revera  sacerdotem  non  fuisse  ante  suum  in  coelum 
ingressum,  hacque  in  re  legali  pontifici  esse  dissimilem,  etc. 
In  proof  of  this  position,  he  remarks:  Quod  ante  mortem 
sacerdos  seu  pontifex  noster  non  esset  probatur  per  verba 
ilia  ad  finem  2  cap.  illius  Epist.  (ad  Hebraeos),  wide  debuit 
per  omnia  fratribus  similari;  nt  misericors  fieret  (sive  esset) 
et  fidelis  Pontifex,  etc.     Ex  quibus  satis  constare  potest, 


43  3  The  Humiliation  of  Clirist. 

Chriscum,  antequam  omnes  infirmitates  nostras,  inter  quas 
mors  praecipua  est,  expertus  esset,  pontificem  revera  factum 
non  luisse.  Neque  enim  credendum  est,  eum  pontificem 
revera  fuisse  constitutum  prius,  quam  vere  fidelis  et  miseri- 
cors  esse  posset.  Idem  manifestum  facere  videntur  ea 
verba,  cap.  v.  5:  Sic  et  Christus  non  semetipsum  clarificavit 
ut  Pontifex  fieret,  sed  qui  locutus  est  ad  cum,  Filius  mens  es 
tu;  ego  Jwdie  gcnui  te.  Hinc  enim  apparet  non  prius 
creatum  vere  pontificem  a  Deo  Christum  fuisse,  quam  ei 
diceretur:  Films  mens  es  tu,  etc.  Sed  id  ante  resurrectionem 
ei  dictum  non  fuit,  teste  Paulo,  Act.  xiii.  33.  Ergo  ante 
resurrectionem,  et  sic  antequam  pateretur,  Christus  sacerdos 
inauguratus  vere  non  fuit. 

Quod  autem  etiam  post  mortem,  antequam  coelos  con 
scenderet,  pontifex  consecratus  non  fuerit,  probant  verba 
ilia  ad  finem  7  cap.,  Talis  enim  decebat,  etc.  Ubi  liquido 
perspicitur,  consentaneum  fuisse,  ut  is,  qui  pontifex  noster 
futurus  esset,  sublimior  coelis  fieret.  Quoad  igitur  sublimior 
coelis  non  est  factus,  nostrum  pontificem  eum  esse  non 
decuit;  nee  porro  fuit.  Probat  idem  id,  quod  cap.  viii.  4, 
scriptum  est:  Si  enim  esset  super  terram,  nee  esset  sacerdos. 
Ex  quo  intelligitur,  ad  sacerdotium  Christi  perficiendum 
mansionem  in  coelis  requiri,  et  extra  coelum  eum  sacer- 
dotem  esse  non  posse.  Multa  alia  ex  eadem  epistola  afferri 
possent,  quae  idem  comprobarent.     Sed  haec  satis  fuerint. 

Ex  hac  autem  Christi,  et  antiqui  sacerdotis  dissimilitudine, 
id  verum  esse,  vehementer  confirmatur,  quod  etiam  citra 
earn  a  me  ex  ipsorum  collatione  jam  demonstratum  fuit; 
non  expiasse  videlicet  Christum  peccata  nostra,  antequam 
in  coelum  ingrederetur.  Nam  si  legalis  pontifex  qui  vere, 
et  perfecte  sacerdos  jam  erat,  non  ante  expiasse  peccata 
populi  dici  poterat,  quam  in  Sanctuarium  ingressus  esset, 
quanto  magis  id  de  Christo  ante  suum  in  coelum  ingressum 
(coelum  enim  hac  in  re  Sanctuario  illi  respondere,  antea 
demonstratum  fuit)  dicendum  est,  cum  ante  ingressum 
istum  sacerdos  nondum  esset  consecratus  ?  Coepit  quidem 
quodammodo  hie  in  terris  Christi  sacerdotium,  sicut  et 
oblatio  coepit.  Sed  utrumque  in  coelis  absolutum  fuit,  que 
pro  nobis  praecursor  ingressus  Jesus  secundum  ordinem 
Melchisedec  in  aeternum  pontifex  est  factus,  Heb.  vi.  20. 


LECTURE  VII. 

Note  A.— Page  316. 

Having  referred  in  the  text  to  the  views  of  the  Atonement 
set  forth  in  two  texts  from  one  of  Paul's  Epistles,  I  ma)? 
here  add  some  further  observations  on  the  Pauline  doctrine 
on  that  great  theme.  That  Paul  held  the  doctrine  of  an 
imputed  or  objective  righteousness  ascribed  to  him,  there 
can  be  no  reasonable  doubt.  Pfleiderer,  in  his  able  delinea- 
tion of  Paulinism,  finds  in  Paul's  Epistles  the  two  correlative 
ideas  of  an  objective  sin  and  an  objective  righteousness- 
treated  as  transferable  quantities,  in  this  confirming  the 
Reformed  interpretation  of  Paulinism  by  his  exegesis,  while 
dissipating  all  the  great  theological  ideas  of  Paulinism  by 
his  philosophy.  As  to  the  text,  2  Cor.  v.  21,  the  word 
anapxiav  applied  to  Christ  does  not  mean  sin-offering. 
Paul  is  not  thinking  in  this  place  of  the  sacrificial  system, 
but  of  the  general  principle  of  God's  dealings  with  Christ, 
and  those  who  join  themselves  to  Him.  On  the  one  hand, 
Christ  is  treated  as  a  sinner,  though  personally  sinless,  as 
far  as  that  is  possible  for  one  who  is  personally  holy.  The 
main  fact  covered  by  the  term  is  Christ's  experience  of 
death,  the  common  lot  of  sinful  mortals.  That  alone, 
without  any  additional  particulars,  in  Paul's  view  sufficed 
to  constitute  Christ's  sin,  to  bring  Him  under  the  category 
of  sin.  He  reasoned  thus:  death  is  the  wages  of  sin; 
Christ  died,  therefore  Christ  was  for  the  Providence  of  God 
as  a  sinner.  But  as  He  was  sinless,  He  must  have  been 
treated  as  a  sinner  for  our  sakes,  who  are  real  sinners.  The 
truth  therefore  is,  that  He  was  made  sin  that  we  might 
become  righteous,  and  so  escape  the  penalty  of  sin.     The 


44-0  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

idea  of  substitution  is  thus  involved.  But  it  is  important 
to  remark,  that  even  in  this  text  the  principle  of  repre- 
sentation or  solidarity  underlies  that  of  substitution.  For 
Paul,  as  for  the  writer  of  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  it  is  a 
great  principle  that  Sanctifier  and  sanctified  are  all  of  one. 
He  would  apply  it  to  all  parts  of  Christ's  work.  Whatever 
belongs  to  the  state  of  those  to  be  saved,  the  Saviour  must 
experience;  the  saved,  on  the  other  hand,  receiving  from 
Him  a  blessing  answering  to  that  feature  in  their  natural 
condition  which  Christ  becomes  subject  to,  and  thereby 
removes.  Thus:  Are  the  Jews  under  the  law  ?  then  Christ 
must  become  under  the  law,  and  so  redeem  them  which 
were  under  it,  that  they  may  receive  sonship.  Or,  again: 
Are  men  subject  to  the  curse  of  the  law,  or  all  who  fail  to 
comply  with  its  behests  ?  then  Christ  must  become  subject 
to  that  curse,  as  He  did  in  its  most  repulsive  form.  So 
here,  in  2  Cor.  v.  21 :  Because  we  are  sinners,  Christ  must 
become  sin;  and  the  result  is,  we  become  partakers  of 
righteousness.  The  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews  extends  the 
application  of  the  principle  to  Christ's  participation  in 
human  nature,  to  the  fear  of  death,  to  death  itself,  and  to 
the  experience  of  temptation.  The  principle  essentially 
signifies  moral  identity  between  Saviour  and  saved, — 
community  of  interest,  of  experience,  and  of  privilege.  It 
brings  the  two  parties  closer  together  than  the  vicarious 
principle  implied  in  the  sacrificial  view  presented  in  Rom. 
iii.  25,  where  Christ  is  called  a  iAadrypiov,  that  is,  a  pro- 
pitiatory sacrifice.  There  Christ  appears  merely  as  a 
substitute,  here  He  is  more — a  representative,  a  central 
person  in  whom  the  race  of  Adam  is  gathered  up  into  a 
moral  unity,  having  one  responsibility  and  one  interest,  all 
things,  even  moral  characteristics,  being  as  far  as  possible 
common;  even  sin  and  righteousness,  which  one  would 
think  inseparable  from  persons  being  treated  as  separable 
entities,  passing  freely  from  the  one  side  to  the  other — sin 
to  the  Sinless  One,  righteousness  to  the  unrighteous.  This 
doctrine  of  the  moral  solidarity  of  Christ  and  believers  is  a 
very  vital  element  in  Paul's  system.  Paul's  aim  was  ever 
to  represent  the  relation  between  Christ  and  believers  as  of 
the  closest  possible  character.     Hence    the  idea    of  mere 


Appe?idix. — Lecture   VII — Note  A.  441 

substitution  could  not  content  him;  he  must  add  to  that 
the  idea  of  an  objective  identity,  valid  for  God,  acknowledged 
in  the  divine  government.  And  even  that  could  not  quite 
satisfy  the  craving  of  his  heart.  Therefore  he  added  still 
another  idea,  that,  viz.,  of  "  mystic  union,"  or  what  we  may 
call  subjective  identity,  according  to  which  Christ  is  one, 
not  only  by  divine  appointment  and  by  outward  lot,  but  in 
conscious  sympathy  with  men;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  men 
are  one  with  Him  in  the  same  manner,  making  His  experi- 
ence in  death  and  resurrection  their  own.  The  former 
aspect  of  this  subjective  identity,  that  of  Christ  with  sinners, 
is  indeed  not  at  all  so  prominent  in  Paul's  Epistles  as  in  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  in  which  the  sympathy  of  Christ 
is  one  of  the  great  outstanding  ideas.  Hints,  however,  are 
not  wanting,  as  in  Rom.  xv.  3,  4:  "  Even  the  Christ  pleased 
not  Himself,  but,  as  it  is  written,  The  reproaches  of  them 
that  reproached  thee  fell  upon  me;  "  and  in  Gal.  vi.  2: 
"  Bear  ye  one  another's  burdens,  and  so  fulfil  the  law  of 
Christ."  The  other  aspect  of  the  subjective  identity  be- 
tween the  Saviour  and  the  saved,  the  sympathy  of  believers 
with  Christ,  occupies  a  position  of  much  greater  prominence. 
It  is  a  favourite  thought  with  Paul,  that  in  believing  in 
Jesus  men  die  along  with  Him,  nay,  not  only  die,  but  rise 
and  ascend  to  heaven.  We  find  it  in  the  earliest  of  the 
four  great  Epistles,  Gal.  ii.  20:  Xpi6T(ip  6wE6ravpoafj.ai,  and 
it  recurs  in  2  Cor.  v.  14;  the  one  text  containing  the  idea 
of  co-dying,  the  other  not  only  that,  but  also  the  correlate 
idea  of  a  co-resurrection.  It  thus  appears  that,  to  express 
all  that  Christ  crucified  was  to  Paul's  faith,  we  would 
require  to  use  three  words.  In  that  faith  Christ  the  Vicar, 
Christ  the  Representative  (before  God),  and  Christ  the 
Brother  were  blended  together  in  indissoluble  unity.  In 
this  blending  lies  the  peculiarity  of  Paul's  doctrine,  the 
Glaubensmystik  (faith-mysticism),  which  it  is  one  of  the 
vhief  merits  of  Pfleiderer's  work  to  have  duly  signalized. 
On  the  bearings  of  the  doctrine  of  Christ's  intimate  rela- 
tion to  men,  on  the  theory  of  the  Atonement,  the  reader 
may  consult  Dale's  Lectures  on  the  Atonement,  delivered  in 
1875.  The  amount  of  light  thrown  on  the  subject  is  not 
considerable,  but  the  discussion  is  genial. 


442  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

Note  B. — Page  320. 

THE  passage  referred  to  is  in  his  Commcntarium  in 
Joannem,  lib.  ii.  107  (Ruperti  Titiensis,  Opera,  vol.  iii.  p. 
244,  Migne's  edition).  Speaking  of  the  meaning  of  John's 
baptism  in  general,  and  of  Christ's  baptism  by  him  in  par- 
ticular, Rupert  says:  Igitur  ad  agendum  pro  cuncto  mundo 
poenitentiam  qua  peccata  cunctorum  expiaret,  Dominum 
nostrum  venisse  dubium  non  est  .  .  .  Igitur  causa,  cur  Jo- 
annes venit  in  aqua  baptizare  et  praedicare  baptismum 
poenitentiae,  non  est  alia  quam  haec,  ut  ille  Sanctus  sanc- 
torum, qui  solus  erat  idoneus  ferre  poenitentiam,  pro  pec- 
catis  omnium  electorum,  adventum  ejus  ab  origine  mundi 
expectantium,  hac  voce  publica  vocatus,  accederet  palam 
ad  coeleste  sanctuarium,  in  conspectu  Dei  Patris  et  sanc- 
torum angelorum,  ubi  eodem  spiritu  in  columbae  specie 
super  se  descendente  designaretur  Pontifex,  quo  dudum  in 
Mariam  superveniente,  idem  sanctus  et  immaculatus  homo 
conceptus  est,  non  aliam  habiturus  quam  offerret  hostiam 
nisi  carnem  propriam,  quam  statim  quadraginta  dierum  et 
quadraginta  noctium  jejunio,  deinde  omnibus  poenitentiae 
modis  afflictam,  tandem  pro  peccatis  nostris  oblaturur  erat 
Deo  Patri,  "  hostiam  in  odorem  suavitatis "  acceptam. 
Rupert,  in  another  place,  gives  as  one  reason  of  Christ's 
baptism:  Ut  pro  omnibus  poenitentiam  ipse  agendam  sus- 
ciperet,  quod  et  fecit  continuo  ut  baptizatus  est,  jejunavit 
«nim  quadraginta  diebus  et  quadraginta  noctibus,  et  deinde 
mcessanter  afflictus  est  tentationibus,  persecutionibus,  con- 
tumeliis,  opprobriis,  fiagellis,  et  tormento  ultimae  mortis 
{In  quatnor  Evang,  cap.  xiii.  4,  vol.  i.  p.  1546,  Migne). 
Rupert,  however,  repudiated  the  idea  of  the  Adoptianists, 
that  Christ,  in  being  baptized,  underwent  regeneration 
{De  Divinis  Ojficiis,  lib.  iii.  c.  xxiv.,  nee  quaerens  remedium 
renascendi  sic  voluit  baptizari).  He  does,  indeed,  speak 
of  Jesus  as,  like  Joshua,  clothed  with  filthy  garments,  and 
as  being  washed  from  pollution  in  the  baptism  of  His  pas- 
sion; but  the  filthy  garments  are  merely  mortalitatem  nos- 
tram  et  passibilitatem  propter  quam  sordidus,  et  contemp- 
tibilis  apparebat  hominibus  {In  Joannem,  lib.  xiii.  vol.  iii 
p.  795,  Migne). 


Appendix. — Lecture    VII. — Note   C.  443 

Note  C. — Page  340. 

The  doctrine  that  Christ  suffered  spiritual  and  eternal 
death  in  essence,  if  not  in  accidents,  was  held  both  by  the 
Lutheran  and  by  the  Reformed  dogmatists.  It  was  a  doc- 
trine little  known  before  the  Reformation.  Anselm,  for 
example,  laid  no  stress  upon  the  mental  sufferings  of  Christ, 
but  simply  on  the  fact  that  He  died,  gave  His  infinitely 
precious  life  freely  for  man's  redemption.  There  is  not 
much  in  patristic  literature  bearing  on  the  subject,  and 
what  there  is,  is  different  in  tone  from  the  statements  to  be 
found  in  Protestant  dogmatic  literature.  Cyril  has  one  im- 
portant passage  on  Christ's  exclamation  on  the  cross,  "  My 
God,  my  God,  why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me  !  "  which  may  be 
taken  as  a  sample  of  the  way  in  which  the  subject  struck 
the  patristic  mind.  The  passage  occurs  in  Quod  units  sit 
Christus,  p.  1325.  Cyril  teaches  that  Christ,  in  uttering 
these  words,  spoke  in  the  name  of  humanity.  He  was  en- 
titled to  exclaim,  "  Why  hast  Thou  forsaken  me  !  "  because 
He  was  holy;  and  in  uttering  the  cry  of  desertion  He  was, 
as  it  were,  entreating  God  to  regard  men  as  holy  in  Him, 
and  to  remove  from  them  His  anger.  'EndAei  ydp  ovh  kep 
tavzov  uaWov,  dW  £<p'  T}/nd~S  avvovS,  rr/v  itapd  itocrpoi  ev/ueveiav. 
John  of  Damascus  makes  Christ  partake  of  the  curse 
tf^crzHtas,  as  being  ranked  with  us;  not  really  in  the  sense 
in  which  He  took  human  nature,  but  only  quasi.  He  dis- 
tinguishes between  two  kinds  of  appropriation  (otnEiaJdeis), 
one  physical  and  substantial  (<pvdiH?j  nai  ovdiaiSqs),  and  one 
personal  and  relative  (npodooniHT/  nai  6x£TlHt'?)-  The  curse 
was  appropriated  in  the  latter  way:  r?)v  ts  nardpav  nai  rr/v 
iynaraXeiipiv  r'/juoov,  nai  zd  xoxavra  ovh  ovtoc  cpvdind,  ovh  avvoi 
ravra  aov  rj  yEvoj-tEvoi  Gonsiajdaro,  dXXd  to  rf/ue'rspov  avadsxouEvoS 
7tp66ooTtov,  nai  jjeQ'  rj/.i(3v  raddojuevoS.     Toiovvov  8i  kdn,  nai  to  ye- 

rojuevos  vitep  r)n<5v  naidpa  {De  Fide  OrtJwdoxa,  lib.  iii.  cap. 
25).  The  doctrine  in  question  may  thus  be  regarded  as  a 
Protestant  elaboration — the  theory  of  substitution  carried 
out  to  its  last  consequence,  and  one  is  almost  inclined  to 
add,  ad  absurdum.  Statements  of  this  doctrine  equally 
strong  may  be  found  both  in  Lutheran  and  in  Reformed 
theologians.     The  following  are  samples: — 


444  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

HEIDEGGER,  a  Reformed  divine  (in  loc.  18,  Dc  statu 
C/iristi),  teaches  that  Christ  suffered  "  cruciatus  graviores, 
imo  infernalcs,  utpote  peccato  debitos,  et  sine  quibus  ex- 
antlatis  liberatio  nostra  a  potestate  Diaboli  et  inferni  non 
constetisset  "  (cap.  34).  The  principle  is  stated  in  cap.  35, 
that  the  Sponsor  puts  Himself  in  place  of  the  guilty,  and 
must  be  taken  as  guilty,  which  He  cannot  be,  "  si  non  ob- 
noxius  sit  eidem  cum  reo  damnationi." 

H.  ALTING  [Problemata  Theolog.  pars  i.  p.  179)  says: 
Dolores  infernales,  quales,  impii  omnes  in  aeternum  patien- 
tur  anima  est  perpessus  (Christus).  He  is  discussing  the 
meaning  of  the  words  of  the  Creed,  "  He  descended  into 
hell,"  and  he  interprets  them,  as  Calvin,  Beza,  etc.,  as  re- 
ferring to  the  endurance  of  hell  pains  on  the  cross,  saying 
that  it  is  not  credible  that  the  authors  of  the  Creed  would 
have  omitted  the  mental  sufferings  of  Christ  !  This  is  an 
assertion  similar  to  that  of  Calvin,  that  Elisha  would  doubt- 
less instruct  Naaman  the  Syrian  in  the  truth  of  the  gospel, 
it  being  assumed  that  no  man  could  be  among  the  saved 
(as  Naaman  was  believed  to  be),  unless  he  possessed  a  cer- 
tain amount  of  doctrinal  knowledge  of  the  way  of  salvation. 
(On  this  point,  consult  Dr.  Rainy,  Cunningham  Lectures, 
Lect.  II.)  In  another  place,  Alting  states  the  same  view 
in  connection  with  the  doctrine  that  Christ  offered  a  per- 
fect satisfaction  for  sins.  He  specifies  three  things  as  en- 
tering into  a  perfect  satisfaction:  1.  The  dignity  of  the 
Person;  2.  The  gravity  of  the  passion,  in  connection  with 
which  it  is  taught  that  Christ  suffered  mors  aeterna  and  ex 
judicio,  is  taken  as  equivalent  to  aeterna  damnatione,  and 
the  curse  as  including  both  temporal  and  eternal  death;  3. 
The  approbation  of  God.     (Loci  communes,  vol.  i.  164-167). 

Wendeline  expresses  himself  in  a  qualified  manner. 
iTo  the  question,  An  Deus  revera  Christum  deseruerit  ?  he 
replies:  Distinguenda  desertio  perpetua  et  totalis,  qualis 
est  reproborum, — et  temporalis,  eaque  non  totalis  sed  par- 
tialis tantum,  et  secundum  quid.  Fuit  haec  desertio  non 
paterni  animi  a  dilecto  filio,  vel  ad  momentum  alienatio, 
sed  gratiosae  praesentiae  occultatio  et  auxilii  et  liberationis 
ex  angustiis,  quibus  abjecti  et  derelicti  a  Deo  solent  urgeri, 
dilatio  (quoted  by  Schweitzer,  Die  Glaubenslehre  der  evan* 


Appendix. — Lecture   VII. — Note   C.  445 

gelisch-reformirten  Kircke,  vol.  ii.  p.  330).  To  the  same 
effect  in  Christiana  Theologia,  Wendeline  says:  Spiritualis 
passionis  inchoatio  fuit  amissio  gaudii,  quod  fruitio  et  gratiae 
plenitudo  ei  solebat  adferre:  accessit  animae  tristitia,  pavor 
et  horror  in  dyoovia,  Matt.  xxvi.  37-39.  Consummatio  fuit 
in  ilia  patris  derelictione,  qua  omnem  consolationis  sensum 
amisit  ad  tempus,  Matt,  xxvii.  46.  De  hac  passione  nostri 
accipiunt  descensum  ad  inferos  (lib.  i.  cap.  xviii.  p.  300).  He 
held,  nevetheless,  that  Christ  suffered  eternal  death  as  to 
intensity,  though  not  as  to  duration:  Etiamsi  non  sensit 
mortem  aeternam  quoad  durationem,  tamen  quoad  inten- 
sionem  (quoted  by  Heppe,  Die  Dogmatik  der  evangelisch- 
reformirten  Kirche,  p.  340).  To  the  same  effect  Heppe 
quotes  Burmann.  Turretine  expresses  himself  in  much  the 
same  way  as  Wendeline. 

The  Lutheran  theologians  went  even  beyond  the  Re- 
formed in  the  strong  way  in  which  they  asserted  the 
doctrine. 

HOLLAZ  calls  Christ,  in  the  agony  and  passion,  a  specu- 
lum irae,  gratiae,  virtutis,  and  decides  that  He  sustained 
infernal  pains  qua  substantiam  non  qua  accidentia,  and  of 
intensity  equal  to  the  pains  of  hell,  not  in  the  place  of  the 
damned,  but  on  Mount  Olivet.  Christus  (he  says  in  one 
place)  sustinuit  poenam  equipollentem  aeternae  poenae, 
subivit  quippe  poenas  infernales  intensive  quoad  earum  vim, 
pondus  ac  substantiam,  licet  non  extensive,  quoad  dura- 
tionem ac  subjectorum  patientium  accidentia.  Sustinuit 
cruciatuum  extremitatem  non  aeternitatem  {Examen  theolo- 
gicum,  p.  742,  conf.  p.  769). 

QUENSTEDT  goes  so  far  as  to  speak  of  Christ  being  the 
object  of  God's  extreme  hatred:  Non  quidem  Deus  Pater 
filio  suo  ratione  personae  suae  irascebatur;  sed  quia  peccata 
totius  mundi  in  se  susceperat,  non  potuit  non  vi  justitiae 
suae  vindicatricis  eum  extreme  odisse,  tanquam  peccatorem 
omnium  quos  sol  unquam  vidit,  maximum  {Excursus  de 
derelictione  Christi  theol.  did.  pot.  t.  iii.  p.  358;  conf.  Stein- 
meyer,  Die  Leidensgeschichte  des  Herrn,  p.  205).  In  another 
place  he  represents  Christ  as  suffering  exactly  what  sinners 
had  to  suffer:  Neque  enim  acceptavit  Deus  aliquid  in  hac 
satisfactione  ex  liberalitate,  quod  in  se  tale  non  esset,  nee 


446  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

de  jure  suo  in  exactione  poenae  nobis  debitae  et  a  sponsore 
praestitae  aliquid  remisit,  sed  quod  justitiae  ejus  rigor 
postulabat,  id  etiam  omne  Christus  in  satisfactione  sustinuit; 
adeo  ut  ipsas  etiam  infernales  poenas  senserit,  licet  non  in 
inferno  et  in  aeternum  (iii.  p.  246,  quoted  by  Schmid,  Die 
Dogmatik  dcr  evangelisch-lutherischen  Kirche,  p.  302). 

HuTTERUS  speaks  not  less  explicitly:  Neque  enim  ideo 
meritum  Christi  non  est  infiniti  pretii  quia  Christus  non 
aeternam  mortem  subiit:  quemadmodum  enim  inobedientiae 
nostrae  peccata  sunt  actu  finita,  reatu  vero  infinita:  siquidem 
impingunt  in  infinitam  Dei  justitiam:  sic  obedientia  et  mors 
Christi  fuit  quidem  actu  finita  quatenus  certi  temporis 
periodo,  diebus  nimirum  exinanitionis  fuit  circumscripta; 
meriti  vero  ratione  est  infinita,  siquidem  ab  infinita  persona 
profisciscitur,  ipso  nimirum  unigenito  filio  Dei.  Deinde 
neque  illud  simpliciter  verum  est,  quod  execratio  legis 
tantum  definienda  sit  per  mortem  aeternam.  Hoc  enim 
verum  si  esset,  perquam  incommode  apostolus  execrationem 
illam  legis  definivisset  per  illud  Mosaicum  (Deut.  xxi.  23): 
"  Execrabilis  omnis,  qui  pendet  in  ligno."  Turn  mors 
aeterna  non  modo  definitur  perpetua  continuatione  sive 
perpessione  cruciatuum  infernalium:  sed  et  sensu  dolorum 
infernalium,  cum  abjectione  sive  desertione  a  Deo  con- 
juncto;  ita  ut  qui  vel  ad  momentum  saltern  hujusmodi 
dolores  sustinet,  is  aeternam  mortem  sensisse  dici  queat. 
Quemadmodum  sane  Christus  non  ad  momentum  vel  exi- 
guum  aliquod  temporis  spatium,  sed  per  omne  tempus 
exinanitionis,  sensum  dolorum  istorum  infernalium  vere 
subiit,  ita  ut  tandem  exclamare  necessum  haberet;  Deus 
meus,  Deus  meus,  quare  me  dereliquisti  ?  Quod  vero  pos- 
teriore  modo  aeternam  mortem  non  subiit,  in  causa  fuit, 
quod  ipse  innocens  moriendo  legi  satisfecerat  {Loci  com- 
munes, p.  427,  quoted  by  Schmid,  p.  303). 

The  subject  to  which  the  foregoing  extracts  relate  formed 
the  subject  of  a  bitter  controversy  in  England,  in  which 
Bishop  Bilson  took  a  prominent  part,  and  to  which  he  gave 
rise  by  certain  sermons  which  he  preached  at  St.  Paul's 
Cross,  on  the  redemption  of  sinners  by  Christ's  blood  {The 
effect  of  certain  Sermons  preached  at  St.  Paul's  Cross,  con- 
cerning the  full  Redemption  of  Mankind  by  the  DcatJi  and 


Appendix. — Lecture    VII — Note  D.  447 

Blood  of  Christ  Jesus).  The  Bishop,  in  these  sermons, 
promulgated  the  idea  that  Christ  did  not  endure  spiritual 
and  eternal  death,  and  insisted  on  the  fact  that  such  a  view 
was  unknown  to  Scripture  or  the  Fathers.  Christ,  he  held, 
suffered  all  that  a  holy  Being  could  suffer,  but  no  more; 
and  among  the  things  which  He  could  not  suffer,  were  the 
death  of  the  soul,  in  the  sense  of  a  real  separation  from 
God,  and  eternal  death.  These  views  met  with  animated 
contradiction,  which  led  Bilson  to  publish  another  work, 
entitled  The  Survey  of  Christ's  Sufferings  for  Mans  Re- 
demption; the  latter  work  was  published  in  1603,  the  former 
work  being  published  in  1599.  The  controversy  which 
then  raged  made  a  great  noise  and  gave  rise  to  a  con- 
siderable literature,  which  is  now  almost  entirely  unknown, 
and  probably  not  worth  reading,  though  Bilson's  books 
have  an  interest  of  their  own.  The  echo  of  the  controversy 
seems  to  have  reached  Germany,  for  Cotta  in  his  Second 
Dissertatio,  de  Statibus  et  Officio  Christi,  quoted  at  p.  351, 
refers  to  Bilson's  book,  De  descensu  Christi  ad  inferos,  pub- 
lished at  London  1604. 

Note  D. — Page  345. 

Philippi  quotes  from  Dannhauer,  C atec  his  mus  milch,  the 
following  passage  in  which  the  exacting  nature  of  Christ's 
love  is  recognised:  "  Ein  einiges  Tropflein  seines  vergossenen 
Blutes  ware  genugsam  den  unendlichen  Zorn  des  himm- 
lischen  Vaters  zu  stillen,  wo  er  nicht  aus  iiberfliessender 
Liebe  alle  sein  Blut  zumal  vergeissen  wollte  "  {Kirchliche 
GlaubensleJire,  Band  iv.  2  Halfte,  p.  96,  note)  ["  a  single 
drop  of  His  shed  blood  were  enough  to  still  the  infinite 
anger  of  the  heavenly  Father,  if  it  were  not  His  will  in  in- 
finite love  to  shed  all  His  blood  at  once"].  He  also 
quotes  from  Bernard's  Sermons  on  the  Canticles,  a  passage 
in  which  is  set  forth,  as  a  reason  for  the  greatness  of  Christ's 
sufferings,  His  desire  to  ensure  gratitude  by  a  signal  display 
of  love.  The  words  are:  "  Suffecisset  ad  redemptionem 
orbis'una  pretiosissimi  sanguinis  gutta,  sed  data  est  copia, 
ut  in  beneficii  recordationem  virtus  nos  diligentis  clares- 
ceret."     This  passage  I  have  not  been  able  to  find;  but  the 


44-8  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

following,  containing  the  same  thought,  is  from  Sernto  xi. 
7.  The  subject  of  the  extract  is  "  The  Exinanition  of  the 
Son  of  God  in  the  Work  of  Redemption."  Bernard  says: 
"  Non  simplex  aut  modica  ilia  exinanitio  fuit:  sed  semet- 
ipsum  exinanivit  usque  ad  carnem,  ad  mortem,  ad  crucem. 
Quis  digne  pensit,  quantae  fuerit  humilitatis,  mansuetudinis 
dignationis,  dominum  majestatis  carne  indui,  mulctari  morte, 
turpari  cruce  ?  Sed  dicit  aliquis:  non  valuit  opus  suum 
reparare  Creator  absque  ista  difficultate  ?  Valuit,  s»d 
maluit  cum  injuria  sui,  ne  pessimum  atque  odiosissimum 
vitium  ingratitudinis  occasionem  ultra  reperiret  in  homine. 
Sane  multum  fatigationis  assumpsit,  quo  multae  dilectionis 
hominem  debitorem  teneret:  commoneretque  gratiarum 
actionis  difficultas  redemptionis,  quern  minus  esse  devotum 
fecerat  conditionis  facilitas.  Quid  enim  dicebat  homo 
creatus  et  ingratus  ?  Gratis  quidem  conditus  sum,  sed 
nullo  auctoris  gravamine  vel  labore.  Siquidem  dixit,  et 
factus  sum,  quemadmodum  et  universa.  Quid  magnum  est, 
quamlibet  magna  in  verbi  facilitate  donaveris  ?  Sic  benefi- 
cium  creationis  attenuans  humana  impietas  ingratitudinis 
materiam  inde  sumebat,  unde  amoris  causam  habere  debu- 
crat,  idque  ad  excusationes  in  peccatis.  Sed  obstructum 
fcStos  loquentium  iniqua.  Luce  clarius  patet  quantum  modo 
pro  te,  O  homo,  dispendium  fecit:  de  Domino  servus,  de 
divite  pauper,  Caro  de  Verbo,  et  de  Dei  Filio  hominis  filius 
fieri  non  despexit.  Memento  jam  te,  etsi  de  nihilo  factum, 
non  tamen  de  nihilo  redemptum.  Sex  diebus  condidit 
omnia,  et  te  inter  omnia.  At  vero  per  totos  triginta  annos 
operatus  est  salutem  tuam  in  medio  terrae.  O  quantum 
laboravit  sustinens!  Carnis  necessitates,  hostis  tentationes, 
nonne  sibi  crucis  aggravavit  ignominia,  mortis  cumulavit 
horrore  ?  Necessarie  quidem.  Sic,  sic  homines  et  jumenta 
salvasti,  Domine,  quemadmodum  multiplicasti  misericor- 
diam  tuam  Deus." 

Note  E.— Page  346. 

In  his  miscellaneous  remarks  (chap,  v.,  on  "  Satisfaction 
for  Sin."  Works,  ii.  p.  574),  Edwards  thus  deals  with  the 
question,  in  what  sense  Christ  suffered  the  wrath  of  God: 
"  Christ  suffered  the  wrath  of  God  for  men's  sins  in  such  a 


Appendix. — Lecture   VII. — Note  B.  449 

way  as  He  was  capable  of,  being  an  infinitely  holy  person, 
who  knew  that  God  was  not  angry  with  Him  personally, 
knew  that  God  did  not  hate  Him,  but  infinitely  loved  Him, 
The  wicked  in  hell  will  suffer  the  wrath  of  God,  as  they 
will  have  the  sense,  and  knowledge,  and  sight  of  God's  in- 
finite displeasure  towards  them,  and  hatred  of  them.  But 
this  was  impossible  in  Jesus  Christ.  Christ,  therefore,  could 
bear  the  wrath  of  God  in  no  other  but  these  two  ways. 

"  1.  In  having  a  great  and  clear  sight  of  the  infinite 
wrath  of  God  against  the  sins  of  men,  and  the  punishment 
they  had  deserved.  This  it  was  most  fit  that  He  should 
have  at  the  time  when  He  was  suffering  in  their  stead,  and 
paying  their  ransom  to  deliver  them  from  that  wrath  and 
punishment.  That  He  might  know  what  He  did,  that  He 
might  act  with  full  understanding  at  the  time  when  He 
made  expiation,  and  paid  a  ransom  for  sinners  to  redeem 
them  from  hell,  first,  it  was  requisite  that  at  that  time  He 
should  have  a  clear  sight  of  two  things — viz.  of  the  dread- 
ful evil  and  odiousness  of  that  sin  that  He  suffered  for,  that 
He  might  know  how  much  it  deserved  punishment;  that  it 
might  be  real  and  actual  grace  in  Him,  that  He  undertook 
and  suffered  such  things  for  those  that  were  so  unworthy 
and  so  hateful,  which  it  could  not  be,  if  He  did  not  know 
how  unworthy  they  were.  Secondly,  it  was  requisite  He 
•hould  have  a  clear  sight  of  the  dreadfulness  of  the  punish- 
ment that  He  suffered  to  deliver  them  from,  otherwise  He 
would  not  know  how  great  a  benefit  He  vouchsafed  them 
in  redeeming  them  from  this  punishment,  and  so  it  could 
not  be  actual  grace  in  Him  to  bestow  so  great  a  benefit 
upon  them;  as,  in  the  time  that  He  bestowed,  He  would 
not  have  known  how  much  He  bestowed;  He  would  have 
acted  blindfold  in  giving  so  much."  After  showing  that  all 
the  circumstances  of  the  passion  tended  to  produce  such  a 
clear  view  of  both  these  things  in  Christ's  mind,  Edwards 
goes  on  to  remark  that  Christ  suffered  that  which  the 
damned  do  not  suffer,  inasmuch  as  they  have  no  clear  idea 
of  the  hateful  nature  of  sin,  such  as  a  holy  being  has;  and 
to  point  out  that  Christ's  love  to  the  sinful  was  a  source 
of  mental  suffering  through  sympathy,  another  ingredient 
different  from  the  suffering  of  the  lost;  and  then  he  arrives 


45o  The  Humiliation  of  Christ. 

at  the  second  way  in  which  Christ  could  endure  the  wrath 
of  God — viz.  by  enduring  the  effects  of  that  wrath.     "All 
that  He  suffered  was  by  the  special  ordering  of  God.     There 
was  a  very  visible  hand  of  God  in  letting  men  and  devils 
loose  upon  Him  at  such  a  rate,  and  in  separating  Him  from 
His  own  disciples.     Thus  it  pleased  the  Father  to  bruise 
Him  and  put  Him  to  grief;  God  dealt  with  Him  as  if  He 
had  been  exceedingly  angry  with  Him,  and  as  though  He 
had  been  the  object  of  His  dreadful  wrath.     This  made  all 
the  sufferings  of  Christ  the  more  terrible  to  Him,  because 
they  were  from  the  hand  of  His  Father,  whom  He  infinite- 
ly loved,  and  whose  infinite  love  He  had  had  eternal  experi- 
ence of.     Besides,  it  was  an  effect  of  God's  wrath  that  He 
forsook  Christ.  .  .  .  This  was  infinitely  terrible  to  Christ. 
Christ's  knowledge  of  the  glory  of  the  Father,  and  His  love 
to    the    Father,    and    the    sense    and    experience    He    had 
had  of  the  worth  of  the  Father's  love  to  Him,  made  the 
withholding  the  pleasant  ideas  and  manifestations  of  His 
Father's  love  as  terrible  to  Him  as  the  sense  and  knowledge 
of  His  hatred  is  to  the  damned,  that  have  no  knowledge 
of  God's  excellency,  no  love  to  Him,  nor  any  experience  of 
the  infinite   fulness    of  His    love."     Yet    another   element 
Edwards  reckons  to  have   entered  into  the    cup  of  wrath 
put  into  Christ's  hand  by  His  Father:  "  It  was  a  special  fruit 
of  the  wrath  of  God  against  our  sins,  that  He  let  loose  upon 
Christ   the   devil,  who  has   the  power  of  death,  is   God's 
executioner,  and  the  roaring  lion  that  devours  the  damned 
in  hell.     Christ  was  given  up  to  the  devil  as  his  captive  for 
a  season.  .  .  .  He  was  let  loose  to  torment  the    soul    of 
Christ    with    gloomy  and  dismal  ideas.     He  probably  did 
his  utmost  to  contribute  to  raise  His  ideas  of  the  torments 
of  hell."     One  thing  needs  to  be  added  to  give  a  complete 
view  of  Edwards'  opinion — viz.  that  he  thinks  it  probable 
that    as  God  ordained  external  circumstances  to  produce 
the  vivid  ideas  of  the  end  of  sin  and  the  horrible  nature  of 
its  punishment  spoken  of  under  the  first  head,  so  "  His  own 
influences  were  agreeable  hereto,  His  spirit  acting  with  His 
providence  to  give  Him  a  full  view  of  these  things."     In  this 
statement  Edwards  does  not  profess  to  give  express  Scrip- 
ture proof.     He  merely  says,  "  there  is  all  reason  to  think." 


INDEX. 


Abbott,  Dr.,  on  Christ's  miracles,  209; 
on  Christ's  resurrection,  215. 

Admonitio  Neostadtiensis,  or  Chris- 
tiana: on  Lutheran  distinction  be- 
tween various  sorts  of  presence,  109; 
on  the  figure  of  the  heated  mass  of 
iron,  no;  when  published,  118;  title 
of.  118;  written  by  Ursinus,  118;  sum- 
mary of  its  Christological  statement, 
1 18-12 1,  gemina  mens,  121;  on  the 
impersonalitas,  385. 

A.doptianism,  67,  68;  Adoptianist  doc- 
trine concerning  Christ's  human  nature 
as  fallen,  249. 

A.gnoetes,  69;  Baur  and  Dorner  on,  70. 

Alcuin  on  voluntariness  of  Christ's  suf- 
ferings, 244. 

Alford  on  Phil.  ii.  5-9,  18. 

Alting,  Henry,  on  the  physical  infirmi- 
ties of  Christ,  264;  on  Christ's  endur- 
ance of  hell  pains,  444. 

Ambrose,  of  Milan,  on  the  kenosis,  168. 

Anselm:  Christ's  sufferings  not  penal, 
319;  laid  no  stress  on  Christ's  mental 
sufferings,  443. 

Antioch,  theological  school  of,  49;  The- 
odore of  Mopsuestia,  Nestorius  of 
Constantinople,  Theodoret  of  Cyrus, 
members  of,  49,  views  of,  on  Chnstol- 
ogy,  49;  on  the  title  SeotohoS,  49; 
held  Christ's  growth  in  knowledge, 
ignorance,  and  experience  of  tempta- 
tion to  be  real,  57;  on  priesthood  of 
Christ,  281,  283;  affirmed  moral  de- 
velopment of  Christ,  281,  285. 

Aphthartodoketism,  68;  Aphthartodo- 
ketic  doctrine  as  to  Christ's  human 
nature,  258. 

Apollinaris,  character  of,  40;  his  theory 
of  Christ's  person,  40-45;  theory  criti- 
cised, 45-48;  death  of,  48;  Liebner  on 
Apollinarism,  406. 

Aquinas,  Thomas,  three  new  ideas  in 
his  Sutnma  relating  to  Christology, 


75 ;  the  Word  incarnate  in  persona, 
not  in  natura,  75 ;  Christ  a  recipient 
of  grace,  78;  Christ  the  Head  of  the 
Church,  80;  Christ's  body  perfect  from 
the  moment  of  conception,  81;  Christ 
had  not  the  graces  of  faith  and  hope, 
82 ;  a  comprehensor  as  well  as  a  viator, 
82;  His  soul  possessed  vision  of  all 
things  in  God,  82;  on  the  elements  of 
value  in  Christ's  passion,  346;  satis- 
f actio  superabundans,  346. 
Arnold,  Matthew,  idea  of  God,  11;  ridi- 
cule of  dogmas,  13;  on  moral  Thera- 
peutics, 214;  leading  idea  of  the  Bible, 
a  Power  making  for  righteousness, 
333 ;  his  view  compared  with  Ritschl's, 

333- 
Athanasius,  on  Apollinarian  theory,  42; 

on  Apollinarian  doctrine  of  redemp- 

tion,  47. 
Axioms.Christological,  22, 23 ;  additional 

axioms,  36. 

Bauer,  onQuenstedt's  ideaof  God,  1 3 ;  on 
the  Epistle  to  the  Philippians,  24;  on 
Apollinarian  theory,  44;  on  Agnoet- 
ism,  70;  Thomas  Aquinas'  idea  of  the 
Incarnation,  77;  on  Aquinas'  doctrine 
of  Christ's  headship,  80;  on  Christ's 
claim  to  be  Judge,  202,  203;  three 
types  of  Christology  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, 224;  on  Schleiermacher's  the- 
ory of  redemption,  317;  on  Luther's 
Christological  views  in  connection  with 
Supper  controversy,  375;  the  Pauline 
doctrine  of  the  6"a'/3£,  432,  436. 

Bernard,  St. :  Christ's  sufferings  a  max- 
imum to  increase  gratitude,  448. 

Beyschlag:  the  use  of  the  name  Christ 
for  the  pre-existent  Logos,  17;  advo- 
cate of  the  Ideal  Man  t:tory,  223  ff. ; 
on  the  titles  Son  of  man  and  Son 
of  God,  225-234;  the  pre-existence, 
234- 


452 


Index. 


Bilson,  Bishop:  controversy  concerning 
the  nature  of  Christ's  sufferings.  447. 

Bodenieyer:  Christ  under  wrath  of  God 
during  whole  state  of  humiliation, 
338. 

Brentz,  John,  86;  his  Christology,  86; 
to  be  in  loco  not  an  essential  property 
of  body,  88;  heaven  not  a  place,  89; 
Christ's  glorified  body  without  form, 
90;  ubiquity  illocal,  92;  local  and  per- 
sonal  ubiquity  distinguished,  92;  the 
humanity  of  Christ  on  earth  pos- 
sessed divine  majesty,  93;  incarnation 
and  exaltation  identical — a  twofold 
humanity  in  Christ,  94;  appearances 
of  Christ  after  resurrection  econom- 
ical, 94;  dissembled  majesty,  95; 
Brentian  and  Chemnitzian  schools 
contrasted  as  to  exinanition,  102. 

Bushnell,  Horace,  love  a  vicarious  prin- 
ciple, 305;  advocate  of  sympathy 
theory  of  redemption,  307;  latest  views 
of,  322;  God's  present  dealings  with 
mankind  not  judicial,  324. 

Calvin",  on  sense  in  which  Christ  suf- 
fered divine  wrath,  337. 
Campbell,    M'Leod,    theory   of  atone- 
ment, 319;  Professor  Park  on,  320. 
Chalcedon,   Council  of,    39;  decree   of, 
concerning  Christ's  person,  39;  con- 
demned Eutychianism,  62;  policy  of 
the  Council,  62. 
Chemnitz,    Martin,    86;    author  of  De 
duabus   naturis  in    Chris  to,   96;    his 
Christological  views  expounded,  97; 
his   idea  of  the    it£fnx&>py<3i<i,    98; 
classification  of  idiomatic  propositions, 
98;  potential  omnipresence,  ioo;prae- 
sentia  intima  and  praesentia  extima, 
10 1 ;  view  of  exinanition,  102;  adopted 
Ambrosian  idea  of  a  retractio  of  the 
Logos,  103;  did  he  hold  the  principle, 
Logos  non  extra  eamem  ?  104;  helped 
to  prepare  the  Formula  Concordiae, 
105 ;  Chemnitzian  and  Brentian  schools 
contrasted  in  reference  to  exinanition, 
112. 
Christology,    Lutheran,    83;   character- 
ized,  84;  two  types  of,  Brentian  and 
Chemnitzian,  85;   criticism  of,    107- 
115;  applies  its  principle  arbitrarily, 
107;  threatens  the  reality  of  Christ's 
humanity,   108;  leaves  no  room   for 
exinanition,  no;  exinanition  an  effect 
without  a  cause,  1 13;  robs  us  of  the 
Incarnation,  114;  relation  to  modern 
speculative    Christology,     115;    con- 
trasted   with    Reformed   Christology, 
115;  relation   to   kenosis,    169;  con- 
nection of,  with  Supper  controversy, 


375;  affinity  with  modern  speculation 
— Schneckenburger  on,  380. 
Christology,  Reformed,  115;  contrasted 
with    Lutheran,     116;    a    consistent 
scheme  in  which  all  Reformed  agreed, 
117;  criticism  of,  120;  its  idea  of  the 
union,  121;  communication  of  char- 
isms,  122;  the  divine  nature  partici- 
pant in  suffering,    123;  wisdom  and 
virtue    wrought    in    Christ's    human 
nature  by  the  Logos  through  His  own 
Spirit,  125,  271;  doctrine  of  exinani- 
tion, 126;  affected  the  divine  nature 
as   occultation,    126;    import   of   the 
gemitta  mens — Schneckenburger  on; 
127;  a  double  life,  127;  does  the  gem- 
ina  mens  imply   a  double  series  of 
parallel  states  of  consciousness?  128; 
antidoketic  realism  of  Reformed  Chris- 
tology— Schneckenburger  on,  131; re- 
lation to  kenosis,  170;  Schweitzer  on, 
382;    Reformed    view   of   unperson- 
nil t as,  385. 
Cotta  (editor  of  Gerhard's  Loci),  on  the 
doctrine  that  Christ  suffered  infernal 
pains,  351;  refers  to  Bishop  Bilson's 
works,  447. 
Crawford,  Professor,  D.D.,  on  Archbish- 
op   M'Gee's    views    concerning    the 
nature    of    Christ's    sufferings,    319; 
inductive  method  of  inquiiy  in    The 
Atonement,  328;  idea  of  a  covenant, 
value  of,  in  solving  difficulties,  331; 
his  classification  of  theones,  352. 
Cyril,    of  Alexandria,  on   Apollinarian 
doctrine  of  redemption,  47,  31 1 ;  on 
opinion    of    Nestorius    on    the    title 
QeoToxoi,  50;  on  the  kenosis,  51, 
169;  reign  of  physical  law  in  Christ's 
humanity,    54;    Christ's    intellectual 
and  moral  growth  only  apparent,  55; 
Cyrillian    Christology    monophysitic 
in  tendency,    58;    affinity    of,    with 
Lutheran   Christology,    59;  his   view 
of  the  kenosis  compared  with  Bishop 
Leo's,  66;  Christ's  death  voluntary, 
245;  on    priesthood    of   Christ,    281, 
282;  denied   moral  development   of 
Christ,    286;   on    the   ignorance   of 
Christ  (extracts  from  works),  368-374, 
opposition  to  metamorphic  views  of 
the  Incarnation,  428;  on  the  deser- 
tion on  the  cross,  439. 

Dale,  on  Christ  suffering  the  wrath  of 
God,  347;  on  Christ's  intimate  rela- 
tion to  men,  442. 

Dannhauer:  extent  of  Christ's  suffer- 
ings enhanced  by  His  love,  447. 

Death,  eternal,  did  Christ  suffer  it  ?  342; 
opinions  ot  Ritschl,  Socinm  Van  Mas- 


Index, 


453 


tricht,  and  Gerhard  on  the  point.  342, 
343;  Hodge  (Dr.  Charles)  on,  343. 

Delitzsch,  his  theory  of  Christ's  person 
(kenotic,  Thomasian  type),  381. 

Development,  moral,  implied  in  tempta- 
tion, 273;  places  in  which  perfecting 
predicated  of  Christ  in  the  Epistle  to 
Hebrews,  274;  in  what  senses  used, 
276;  compatible  with  sinlessness,  285; 
conceived  by  analogy,  286;  intel- 
lectual  development  of  Christ  com- 
plete before  ministry  began,  288: 
moral  development  went  on,  290. 

Dods  (M.,  the  elder),  on  voluntariness 
of  Christ's  death,  261;  sermon  by 
M'Lagan  on  sympathy  of  Christ,  270. 

Dorner,  on  rationalism,  6;  on  Apolli- 
narian  theory,  43;  on  Cyril's  Chris- 
tology,  58;  on  Leo's  letter  to  Flavian, 
66;  on  the  patristic  idea  of  person- 
ality, 67;  on  Agnoetism,  70;  on  the 
Christology  of  John  of  Damascus,  70; 
Christological  transubstantiation,  71; 
Thomas  Aquinas'  idea  of  the  Incar- 
nation, 77;  Lutheran  Christology,  96; 
Danaeus  on  Chemnitz,  99;  on  Lu- 
theran Christology,  1 14;  gradual  In- 
carnation, 137,  170;  on  kenotic  the- 
ories, 167,  172,  176,  178,  179;  on  the 
title  Son  of  man,  231. 

Double  life  of  the  Logos,  20;  double 
aspect  of,  held  by  Apollinaris,  46; 
theory  of  a  double  life  not  held  by 
Aquinas,  77;  a  double  life  involved 
in  Reformed  theory  according  to 
Schneckenburger,  127;  theory  of, 
held  by  Mr.  Hutton  (R.  H.),  129; 
rejected  by  Gess,  151;  asserted  by 
Martensen,  163;  bearing  of  this  idea 
on  Phil.  ii.  7,  189;  use  of  this  and 
other  hypotheses,  192;  held  by  Scho- 
berlein,  418. 

Duns  Scotus:  held  acceptilation  theory 
of  atonement,  343. 

Ebrard,  on  Heb.  ii.  9  (xaopis  Qeov 
preferred  to \a.pixi  Qeov),  33;  Re- 
formed doctrine  as  to  relation  of  in- 
carnation and  exinanition,  1 16;  his 
theory  of  kenosis,  153-160;  criticism 
of,  182—187;  status  humilis,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  fall,  261-264;  views  on 
ixopcprj  Qeov,  361  \fxoftcpr)  Sovkov, 
365;  on  ovx  dprtayjuov  TjXrJ6aro, 
366;  extracts  from  prefaces  to  his 
works,,4i4,  415;  solution  of  specula- 
tive problems  in  Christology,  415;  on 
Christ's  temperament,  430. 

Edwards,  President:  a  perfect  confession 
of  sin  an  alternative  method  of  satis- 
fying for  sin.   319,  320;  in  what  sense 


Christ  suffered  the  wrath  of  God,  349; 

449- 

Epiphanius,  account  of  Apollinaris,  40, 
on  Apollinarian  theory,  43. 

Ernesti,  on  Phil.  ii.  6-9,  359,  363. 

Euripides,  Alcestis  quoted  (Apollo 
banished  from  heaven),  336. 

Eutyches,  opinions  of,  61;  relation  of 
Eutychianism  to  Cyril's  views,  61; 
description  of,  in  Eranistes,  6i ;  under 
consideration  of  three  Synods,  62; 
condemned  as  a  heresy  at  Council  of 
Chalcedon,  62. 

Ewald:  belongs  to  the  school  of  senti- 
mental naturalism,  209;  his  mode  of 
dealing  with  the  resurrection  of  Christ 
212,  213. 

Felix,  of  Urgelles,  his  views  (Adop- 
tianism)  opposed  by  Alcuin,  244;  held 
Christ's  human  nature  to  be  "fallen," 
249-251. 

Formula  Concordiae,  105;  a  compro- 
mise, 106;  failed  to  produce  peace, 
107;  the  Kryptic  controversy  be- 
tween Giessen  and  Tubingen  theo- 
logians arose  out  of  it,  107. 

Gaupp:  theory  of  Christ's  person  (ken- 
otic, Gessian  type),  397. 

Gerhard,  "De  Statu  exinanitionis  et 
exaltationis, "  3;  on  Phil.  ii.  5-9,  16; 
on  reciprocal  communicatio  idioma- 
tum,  107;  exinanitio  and  incarnatio 
distinct,  107;  on  Christ's  omniscience, 
in;  Christ  did  not  suffer  eternal 
death,  342. 

Gess,  his  theory  of  kenosis,  145-153; 
criticism  of,  179;  on  sinlessness  of 
Christ,  149,  273;  Godet  on,  402. 

Giessen-Ttibingen  controversy,  84,  104; 
dispute  about  praesentia  inlima  and 
praesentia  extima,  101 ;  krypsis  and 
kenosis,  fhe  respective  war-cries,  107; 
Giessen  and  Tubingen  theologians 
neutralized  each  other,  113;  account 
of  controversy,  by  Cotta,  377-380. 

Godet,  on  John  i.  17,  294;  Christological 
views  (kenotic,  Gessian  type),  402. 

Goodwin  :  advocates  kenotic  theory 
(Gessian),  413. 

Gregory,  ofNazianzum,  on  Apollinarian 
theory,  46. 

Gregory,  of  Nyssa,  Adv.  Apollinarem, 
43-46;  on  the  drift  of  Apollinaris" 
treatise  on  the  Incarnation,  44. 

Hahn,  theory  of  Christ's  person  (ke- 
notic, Gessian  type),  398. 

Haweis:  his  views  of  Christ,  195;  ex 
pounded  and  criticised,  218-223. 


404 


hidex. 


Hebrews,  Epistle  to  the,  doctrine  of 
humiliation,  25;  view  of  salvation, 
29;  disputed  reading  in  chap.  ii.  9, 
32 ;  places  in  which  Christ  is  spoken 
of  as  perfected,  274;  that  Christ  not 
ambitious  to  be  a  priest,  taught,  chap, 
v.  7,  278;  doctrine  of  Christ's  priest- 
hood, 283;  principle  of  redemption 
enunciated,  chap.  ii.  ii,  301;  a  priest 
must  be  able  fierpiOTtadelv ,  303. 
Heidegger,  on  the  states,  2;  distin- 
guished between  incarnation  and  ex- 
inanition,  116;  on  the  kenosis  as 
occult atio,  128;  on  Christ's  endurance 
of  hell  pain,  444. 
Heidelberg  Catechism:  Christ  suffered 
the  wrath  of  God  throughout  the 
whole  state  of  humiliation,  37. 
Hilary,  2;  view  of  kenosis,  168;  denied 
that  Christ  was  subject  to  physical 
infirmity,  240;  apology  for  his  views 
by  theologians,  242;  voluntariness  of 
Christ's  experience  of  infirmity,  how 
understood  by,  246;  mislead  by  oppo- 
sition to  Arianism,  247;  view  of 
popcprf  &eov,  359. 
Hodge,    Dr.  Archibald,  on  nature   of 

Christ's  sufferings,  343,  347. 

Hodge,  Dr.  Charles,  on  kenotic  theories, 

182;    on    Ebrard's    theory,    190;    on 

nature  of  Christ's  sufferings,  343,  348. 

Hofmann,  on  Heb.  ii.   11,  27;  on  81a 

to  7tdrJTj/jac  rov  Oava  r or  (Heb.  ii. 

9),  30;  belongs  to  kenolic  school,  165; 

on  title  Son  of  man,  230;  on  sinless- 

ness    of   Christ,    273;    Christ    under 

divine  wrath  during  whole  state   of 

humiliation,    340;    his    Christological 

views  (kenotic),  407. 

Hollaz,  on  the  impersonalitas,  385 ;  on 

Christ's  endurance  of  hell  pains,  445. 

Holsten,    on    Pauline    doctrine   of   the 

6dpi,  432,  433. 
Homo'usia,    defined,    3;    inferred    from 
Phil.  ii.  5-9,  25;  taught  in  Epistle  to 
the    Hebrews,    27;    Aquinas    taught 
views  favourable  to,  80;  highly  valued 
in  Reformed  Christology,    129;  em- 
phasized by  Adoptianists,  250. 
Hulsius,    on   Christ's    ignorance,    etc., 
I32;quoted  by  Schneckenburger,  132; 
Ritschl's  comments  on  the  views  of 
Hulsius,  as  reported  by  Schnecken- 
burger. 132. 
Hutterus:  Christ  under  the  wrath  of  God 
during    whole   state    of   humiliation, 
338;   on  Christ's  endurance  of  hell 
pains,  446. 
Hutton,   R.   H.,  believes  in  possibility 
of  a  double  life  of  Logos,    129,  422; 
on  sinlessness  of  Christ,  273,  423. 


Impersonality  of  Christ's  humanity, 
opinions  of  Reformed  theologians  on, 
384,  Schneckenburger's  view,  386. 

Incarnation,  an  exchange  of  divine  form 
for  human  form  of  existence  (Phil.  ii. 
5-7),  20;  an  incarnation  indepen- 
dent of  fall  taught  by  Ebrard,  184, 
262,  416;  by  Liebner,  405. 

Infirmities,  sinless,  of  Christ,  a  source 
of  temptation,  237;  Damascenus  on, 
238. 

Irving,"  Edward,  taught  that  Christ's 
human  -nature  was  "fallen,"  254; 
Irvingism  criticised,  255-258. 

John,  of  Damascus,  70;  on  the  mono, 
thelite  controversy,  71;  Christ's  hu- 
manity possessed  personality,  71; 
makes  Christ's  humanity  lifeless,  71; 
and  Christ's  temptations  unreal,  72, 
270;  doctrine  of  n e pi xoo pt/diS ,  73; 
his  Christology  resembles  Cyril's  and 
the  Lutheran,  73,  74;  Christ  not  a 
servant,  74;  Logos  in  the  humanity 
like  sunbeams  in  an  oak,  74;  senses 
of  the  word  nature,  186;  on  the 
physical  infirmities  of  Christ,  238; 
voluntariness  of,  245. 

Kahnis,  theory  of  Christ's  person  (ke- 
notic, Thomasian  type),  394. 
Keim,  on  Christ's  sinlessness,  198;  be- 
longs to  school  of  sentimental  natur- 
alism, 209;  Strauss  on,   21 1 ;  his  His- 
tory of  Christ  characterized,  211;  on 
the  miracles  of  healing,  213;  on  the 
resurrection  of  Jesus,  215,  on  Christ's 
person  (Matt.  xi.  27),  216;  on  the  title 
Son  of  man,  230;  on  Christ's  tempei- 
ament,  430. 
Kenosis,    4;   kenosis    and   skenosis,    8; 
negative  aspect  of,  16;  positive  aspect, 
20;  vide  Cyril,    Lutheran,    and    Re- 
formed   Christologies,     and    Modern 
Kenotic  Theories,  in  this  table;  mod- 
ern idea  of,  due  to  Zinzendorf,  137. 
Kenotic   theories  (modern),   134;   con- 
nection   with    union    movement    in 
Germany,    134,    135;  relation    to  old 
Lutheran  and  Reformed  Christologies, 
135;  humanistic  tendency  of  modern 
Christology  in  general,    and   of  ke- 
notic school  in  particular,  136;  com- 
mon idea  of,  137;  four  leading  types, 
139;  vide  Thomasius,   Gess,   Ebrard, 
Martensen;    religious    and    scientific 
aims  of,  165;  criticism  of,  165;  I  Mi- 
ner  on    religious    tendency    of,    167; 
kenotic  and    Socinian    theories   com- 
pared, 168;  Ritschl  on,  168;  literature 
of  various  types,  386-426. 


Index. 


455 


Konig,  his  theory  of  kenosis,  388; 
anticipated  Thomasius,  388. 

Le  Blaxc,  characterized  dispute  about 
ubiquity  is  a  logomachy,  109;  his 
theses  theologicae  quoted  to  this 
effect,  109;  on  Zanchius'  view  of 
Christ's  knowledge,  130. 

Leo,  Bishop  of  Rome,  63;  pilot  of  the 
church  in  the  Nestorian  and  Euty- 
chian  controversies,  63;  his  letter  to 
Flavian  analysed,  63;  criticism  of, 
64-67. 

Liebner,  his  Christologie  characterized, 
7;  on  the  ethical  idea  of  God,  7;  on 
Pantheism  and  modern  Theism,  1 1 ; 
on  the  impeccability  of  Christ,  181, 
272;  views  on  jiiopcpt)  Qeov,  362;  on 
Uoptpt/  dovXov,  364;  his  Christo- 
logical  views  (Gessian  type),  403; 
Incarnation  irrespective  of  sin,  405 ; 
on  Apollinarism,  407;  on  Christ's 
temperament,  430. 

Lightfoot,  on  ovx  apnaynov  rjyr)- 
paro,  365. 

Ltidemann,  on  the  Pauline  doctrine  of 
the  6a.pl,  436,  437. 

Luther,  on  the  different  modes  in  which 
a  thing  can  be  in  place,  92;  his 
Christological  views  before  sacra- 
mentarian  controversy  arose,  375. 

MacDonnel:  Christ's  sufferings  im- 
properly called  penal,  319. 

MacGee,  Archbishop:  Christ's  sufferings 
not  penal,  318. 

M'Lagan  (Professor),  on  sympathy  of 
Christ,  quoted,  270. 

Mansel:  idea  of  God,  12. 

Martensen,  on  Schleiermacher's  Chris- 
tology,  14;  theory  of  a  double  life  of 
the  Logos,  20;  a  glory  in  Christ's 
humiliation,  35;  his  theory  of  kenosis, 
160-164;  holds  a  double  life  of  the 
Logos,  163;  his  theory  criticised,  188; 
on  sinlessness  of  Christ,  274;  on 
Christ's  temperament,  430. 

Martineau,  James,  on  Christ's  suffering 
of  divine  wrath,  340,  341. 

Maurice,  on  Mansel's  apology  for  Chris- 
tianity, 13;  his  theory  of  Atonement, 
312. 

Menken,  Gottfried,  of  Bremen:  Christ's 
human  nature  "fallen,"  251. 

Meyer,  on  Phil.  ii.  6-9,  365,  366;  on 
title  Son  of  man,  367. 

Monophysitism,  66,  67;  internal  disputes 
about  Christ's  human  nature,  257. 

Monothelitism,  67,  68. 

Mtlller,  on  sinless  development  of 
Christ,  288. 


Neander,  on  Cyril's  view  as  to  Christ't 

ignorance,  374. 
Nestorius,  patriarch  of  Constantinople, 

belonged    to     Antioch    school,    48; 

Nestorian  controversy,  48;  Nestorian' 

theory   of  Christ's   person,    48,    49;. 

does  the  theory  involve  a  duality  of 

persons  ?  50;  Christ  underwent  moral 

development,  281. 
Nitzsch,  on  kenotic   theories,   192;   his 

view   of  redemption,    317:    View   of 

ixopcprf  Qeov,  362. 
NOsgen,  on  Ebrard's  conception  of  the 

person  of  Christ,  182. 

Offices  of  Christ,  priestly  office  when 
begun,  280;  double  aspect  of,  282; 
Melchisedec  priesthood,  283;  apostolic 
or  prophetic  office  described,  294;. 
humiliations  connected  with,  301  sqq4 ;; 
priestly  office,  301 ;  Christ's  sufferings- 
both  a  qualification  for  office  zmdl 
endured  in  performance  of  priestly 
duty,  303;  Christ  as  a  priest,  repre- 
sentative; as  a  victim,  substitute,  310. 

Origen,  on  Heb.  ii.  9  (Christ  died  for 
every  being,  God  excepted,  ^ajpif 
Qeov),  33. 

Paulinus,  of  Aquileia:  Christ's  soul- 
trouble  voluntary,  how  ?  246. 

Pecaut,  on  the  sinlessness  of  Christ, 
197,  198. 

Peter  the  Lombard,  his  view  of  the 
Incarnation,  75. 

Pfleiderer,  on  Pauline  doctrine  of  the 
6a.pl,  432  ff. ;  Pauline  doctrine  of 
righteousness,  439;   faith  mysticism, 

441. 
Philippi,  his  satisfaction  equation,  350; 

quotations  in,  from    Dannhauer  and 

Bernard  on  the  satisf actio  superabun- 

dans,  448. 
Plato,  description  of  Eros,  263. 
Price,    Dr.,    rationale    of    intercessory 

prayer,  331. 
Priesthood   of  Christ.     See   Offices  of 

Christ. 
Prophetic  office  of  Christ.     See  Cffices 

of  Christ, 

Quenstedt:  idea  of  God,  12;  Christ 
the  object  of  God's  extreme  hatred, 
445- 

Rainy,  Principal,  on  limit  cf  theological 
knowledge,   193. 

Redemption,  by  sample,  47;  the  patris- 
tic view  of  redemption  so  named,  47, 
253;  taught  by  Menken  and  Irving, 
254;  Socinian  theory  of  redemDtion. 


456 


Index. 


298;  sympathy,  theory  of,  305 ;  theory 
of  redemption  by  sample  or  mystic 
theory,  advocated  by  Sclileiermacher, 
Menken,  Irving,  Maurice,  and  Rit- 
schl,  31 1-3 13;  Hilary  and  Cyril  on 
same  theory,  311;  M'Leod  Campbell's 
theory,  319;  Bushnell's  latest  theory, 
322;  wisdom  of  God  in  redemption, 
326;  governmental  theory,  334;  ac- 
ceptation theory,  343;  elements  on 
which  value  of  atonement  depends, 
344;  theories  of  redemption  classified, 

352-355- 

Reuss:  no  doctrine  of  humiliation  in 
the  Gospel  of  John,  35;  kenotic  in 
Christology  after  Gessian  type,  401. 

Richard  of  St.  Victor,  the  humiliation 
of  Christ  as  great  as  Adam's  pre- 
sumption, 349. 

Riehm,  on  Christ's  humanity  in  rela- 
tion to  the  fall,  259;  limitation  of 
Christ's  experience  of  temptation, 
264;  when  did  Christ's  priesthood 
begin,  history  of  question,  284,  285. 

Ritschl,  on  the  views  of  Hulsius  on 
Justification,  132;  the  person  of 
Christ  an  insoluble  problem,  133;  on 
kenotic  theory,  168;  Christianity  an 
ellipse  with  two  foci,  292;  his  theory 
of  redemption.  313;  orthodox  theory 
of  redemption  makes  God  a  Pharisee, 
329;  views  on  imputation,  330;  God's 
dealings  with  mankind  not  judicial, 
330;  idea  of  retributive  justice  not 
in  Bible,  332;  Christ,  according  to 
orthodox  theory,  must  surfer  eternal 
death,  340. 

Rothe:  theory  of  Christ's  person,  223; 
on  sinlessness  of  Christ,  272. 

Rupert  of  Duytz:  Christ  doing  penance, 
320,  321,  442. 

Sadeel,  on  the  illustration  of  heated 
iron,  1 10;  author  of  De  veritate  hum. 
nat.  Ckristi,  261;  Christ's  human 
nature  patible,  261. 

Schleiermacher,  on  Phil.  ii.  5-9,  15;  his 
Christology,  207 ;  a  failure  as  a  com- 
promise, 209;  on  sinlessness  of  Christ, 
272;  his  theory  of  redemption  (mys- 
tical =  redemption  by  sample),  31 1, 
330;  on  the  title  Son  of  man,  226. 

Schmieder,  theory  of  Christ's  person 
(kenotic,  Gessian  type),  400. 

Schneckenburger,  4;  his  Christological 
works,  5 ;  on  Thomasius,  5 ;  on  Luther- 
an Christology,  114;  connection  be- 
tween Luth.  Christology  and  modern 
speculative  Christology,  115;  Re- 
formed idea  of  the  union  as  a  morally 
mediated   one,    126;    import    of  the 


gemina  mens  in  the  Reformed  Chris- 
tology, 127;  antidoketic  realism  of 
Retormed  Christology,  130;  on  the 
views  of  Hulsius  concerning  the 
ignorance  of  Christ,  132;  kenotic 
theory  destructive  of  the  Trinity,  165 ; 
re-statement  of  the  Reformed  theory, 
170;  on  Thomasian  theory,  174; 
Reinhard's  view  of  kenosis,  177;  on 
Luther's  Christological  views  in  their 
relation  to  Supper  controversy,  376* 
on  relation  of  Lutheran  Christology  to 
modern  speculation,  380;  on  Reformed 
doctrine  of  impersonalilas,  386. 

Schoberlein,  his  Christological  views 
(kenotic),  418;  holdsa  double  life,  418. 

Schweitzer,  on  the  meaning  of  the 
gemina  mens  in  Reformed  Chris- 
tology, 129,  382. 

Shorter  Catechism:  the  wrath  of  God 
a  particular  item  in  Christ's  humilia- 
tion, 37. 

Sinlessness  of  Christ,  how  secured,  269; 
poluit  non  peccare  and  non  potuit 
peccare,  269;  various  theories  as  to 
sinlessness,  272;  compatible  with  mor 
al  development,  285;  integrity  and 
perfection  distinct,  286. 

Smyth  (Newman,  American),  derives 
theory  of  atonement  from  the  idea  of 
love,  328. 

Socinus  Faustus,  on  priesthood  of  Christ, 
281,  282,  434,  437,  438;  his  theory  of 
salvation,  298;  according  to  orthodox 
theory  of  atonement,  Christ  must  suffer 
eternal  death,  341 ;  dignity  of  sufferer 
not  to  be  taken  into  account,  344. 

Son  of  man,  meaning  of  the  title  as 
used  by  Christ,  226-231. 

Spencer,  Herbert,  unknowableness  of 
God,  12. 

Status  humilis,  Ebrard  on,  262. 

Strauss,  on  the  Lutheran  doctrine  of  the 
states,  2 ;  on  the  idea  of  God,  1 1 ;  on 
Phil.  ii.  5-10,  15;  on  classification  of 
idiomatic  propositions,  99;  the  Ab- 
solute cannot  perform  special  acts, 
172. 

Temperament:  had  Christ  a  particular 

one  ?  430. 
Theodore,  of  Mopsuestia,  on  Heb.  ii.  9 

(the  reading  x°°P^  Osou  preferred), 

33;  Christological  views  of,  48  ff. 
Theodoret,    of    Cyrus,    opposed    to    a 

physical   union   of  the   natures,    48: 

view  of  the  kenosis  in  opposition  to 

Cyril,  54. 
Tholuck.  on  Phil.  ii.  6-9,  359  ft. 
Thomasius,  founder  of  modern  kenoti« 

school,    5;    Christological   presuj»po- 


Index. 


457 


sitions,  10;  on  Heppe's  view  of  the 
Brentian  doctrine  of  ubiquity,  91; 
account  of  Lutheran  Christology,  96; 
on  Chemnitz'  classification  of  idio- 
matic propositions,  99;  on  genus 
tapetnoticum,  taught  by  Tubingen 
theologians,  108;  on  their  doctrine  of 
omnipresence,  112;  hiskenotic  theory 
expounded,  139-145;  criticised,  178; 
on  sinlessness  of  Christ,  273;  account 
of  Hilary's  views  on /nop cp?)  @sov, 
359;  his  own  view,  360;  on  Luther's 
Christological  views,  375. 

Triduum:  belongs  to  the  state  of  ex- 
inanition,  351. 

Tubingen  school,  see  Giessen:  declared 
abstinence  from  use  of  omniscience  to 
be  impossible,  104;  taught  a  genus 
tapetnoticum,  108;  later  Tubingen 
theory  of  exinanition,  113. 

Turretine,  on  the  states,  2;  wherein  lay 
the  value  of  Christ's  atonement,  344; 
on  Christ's  endurance  of  hell  pains, 
445- 

ULLMANN,  distinction  between  Unsiind- 
lichkeit  and  Sundlosigkeit,  252;  his 
opinion  of  the  advocates  of  the  doc- 
trine that  Christ's  human  nature  was 
fallen,  256. 

Van  Mastricht,  on  Phil.  ii.  5-9,  24; 
idea  of  the   hypostatic   union,   122; 


Christ  suffered  death  in  all  senses, 
temporal,  spiritual,  eternal,  342;  on 
the  impersonalitas,  383. 

WEizsaCKER:  belongs  to  school  of 
sentimental  naturalism,  209. 

Wendeline,  quoted  by  Ebrard,  186;  on 
Christ's  experience  of  divine  wrath,  444 

Wrath  of  God,  endured  by  Christ 
during  whole  state  of  humiliation,  37, 
337;  Heidelberg  and  Westminster 
Catechisms  on,  37;  Hutterus,  Bode- 
meyer,  Hofmann,  Van  Oosterzee, 
hold  views  of  Heidelberg  Catechism 
on,  339  ff. ;  Martineau's  representation 
of  Christ  under  divine  anger,  340; 
Calvin  on,  337;  views  of  Cyril  and 
Anselm  on,  443 ;  views  of  Reformed 
and  Lutheran  theologians  on,  444  ff. 

Zanchius,  de  Incarnatione,  3;  on  the 
word  ccAAd  (Phil.  ii.  7),  18;  on  the 
kenosis  as  occultation  of  the  divine 
glory,  128;  followed  Aquinas  in 
reference  to  Christ's  knowledge,  130; 
on  the  kenosis,  187/  on  the  imperson- 
alitas, 385. 

Zinzendorf,  father  of  modern  kenosis, 
137;  his  view  of  the  Incarnation,  166; 
Bengel  on,  166;  Liebner  on  his 
Christology,  407;  Plitt's  account  of 
his  Christology,  424. 

Zuingli,  effect  of  original  sin,  334. 


STANDARD   RELIGIOUS    BOOKS, 


®I)c  Clerical  Cibratrj. 

J1THIS  SERIES  of  volumes  is  specially  intended  for  the  CLERGY,  Stu« 

■*■  DENTS  AND  SUNDAY  SCHOOL  TEACHERS  OF  ALL  DENOMINATIONS, 
and  is  meant  to  furnish  them  with  stimulus  and  suggestion  in  the  various 
departments  of  their  work.  Amongst  the  pulpil  thinkers  from  whom 
these  sermon  outlines  have  been  drawn  are  leading  men  of  almost  every 
denomination  in  Great  Britain  and  America,  the  subjects  treated  of  being 
of  course  practical  rather  than  controversial.  The  best  thoughts  of  the 
oest  religious  writers  of  the  day  are  here  furnished  in  a  condensed  form 
*nd  at  a  moderate  price. 

Eight  volumes  in  crown  8vo  are  now  ready  (each  volume  complete  in 
itself).     Price,  $1.50. 

NOW   READY— FOURTH  EDITION. 

300  OUTLINES  OF  SERMONS  ON  THE  NEW  TESTAMENT. 


By  73  Eminent 

Archbishop  Tait. 
Bishop  Alexander. 
Bishop  Browne. 
Bishop  LlGHTFOOT. 
Bishop  Magee. 
Bishop  Ryle. 
Dean  Church. 
Dean  Vaughan. 
Canon  Farrar. 
Canon  Knox-Little. 


English  and  American  Clergymen,  including 


Canon  LlDDON. 

Canon  Westcott. 

Rev.  Prin.  Cairns. 

Rev.  Dr.  M.  Punshon. 

Rev.  Dr.W.  M.Taylor. 

Rev.  Phillips  Brooks. 

Rev.  Dr.  R.  S.  Storrs. 

Rev.  Dr.W.  G.T.Shedd.J Rev.  Dr.  A.  Raleigh 

Rev.  Dr.  T.  L.  Cuyler.  And  many  otheri 

Rev.  Dr.  J.  T.  DURYEA.| 


Rev.  Dr.  H.  Crosby. 
Rev.  Dr.  Pres.  McCosh. 
Rev.  Dr.  M.  R.Vincent. 
Rev.  Dr.  Jno.  Peddie. 
Rev.  Dr.  C.  T.  Deems, 
Rev.  C.  H.  Spurgeon 
Rev.  Dean  Stanley. 


OUTLINES  OF  SERMONS  ON  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


G.  S.  Barrett,  B.A. 
Dean  E.  Bickersteth. 
Bishop  E.  H.  Browne. 
T.  Bald.  Brown,  B.A. 
T.P.  Boultbee,  LL.D. 
J.  P.  Chown. 
Dean  R.W.  Church. 
E.  R.  Couder,  D.D. 
T.  L.  Cuyler,  D.D. 
A.  B.  Davidson,  D.D. 
Robert  Rainy,  D.D. 
Alex'r  Raleigh,  D.D. 
C.  P.  Reichel,  D.D. 
Chas.  Stanford,  D.D. 
Dean  A.  P.  Stanley. 
W.  M.  Stratham.B.A. 


AUTHORS  OF  SERMONS. 

T.Oswald  Dykes,D.D. 
E.  Herber  Evans. 
Canon  F.W.  Farrar. 
Donald  Fraser,  D.D. 
J.G.Greenhough.BA. 
W.  F.  Hook,  D.D. 
Bishop  W.Basil  Jones. 
John  Kerr.  D.D. 
Canon  Edward  King. 
Bp.  J.  B.  Lightfoot. 
Wm.  M.Taylor,  D.D. 
S.  A.  Tipple,  B.A. 
H.  J.  VanDyke,  D.D. 
Dean  C.  J.  Vaughan. 
James  Vaughan,  B.A. 


Canon  Liddon. 
J.A.Macfayden.D.D. 
Alex.  M  aclaren,  D.  D 
Bishop  W.  C.  Magee. 
Theodore  Monod. 
Arthur  Mursell. 
Joseph  Parker,  D.D. 
Dean  E.  H.  Plumptre, 
John Pulsford.  [D.D. 
W.  Morley  Punshon, 
M.  R.Vincent,  D.D. 
W.  J.  Woods,  B.A. 
C.  Wadsworth,  D.D 
G.  H.  Wilkinson. 

Bp.  C.  WORDSWOiTH. 


Copies  sent  by  mail,  postpaid,  on  receipt  of  price. 


THE  CLERICAL  LIBRARY-KContlnued). 


EXPOSITORY  SERMONS  AND  OUTLINES  ON 
THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Crown  8vo,  cloth.     $1.50.     Being  the  6th  vol.  of  the  Clerical  Library. 


W.  Alexander,  D.D., 
Bishop  of  Dbrry. 

A.  Barry,  D.D.,  Primate 
of  Australia. 

Dean  Bradley,  of  West- 
minster. 

Stopford  A.  Brooke. 


Containing  Sermons  by 

Prof.    A.    B.    Davidson, 

D.D.,  LL.D. 
Ven. Archdeacon  Farrar. 
Canon  W.J.  Knox-Little. 
Canon  H.  P.  Liddon,  D.D. 
Alexander       Maclaren, 

D.D. 


George  Matheson,  D.D. 
Joseph  Parker,  D.D. 
Dean  J.  J.  S.  Perowne. 
C.  Stanford,  D.D. 
Lord  Bishop  of  Chester. 
Dean  Vaughan. 


"  Rick  in  practical  application,  these  Sermons  will  be  an  education  and  an  int^- 
ration  to  many."— ^i,  Y.  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal. 


PLATFORM  AND  PULPIT  AIDS. 

Consisting  of  Striking  Speeches,  Home  Work,  Foreign  Missions, 
the  Bible,  Sunday  School,  Temperance,  and  Kindred  Sub- 
jects, with  Illustrative  Anecdotes  from  Addresses.  Crown 
8vo,  cloth.     $1.50.     Being  the  7th  vol.  of  the  Clerical  Library. 


By 


Prebendary  Ainslie. 
W.  Arthur. 
Bishop  of  Bedford. 
Dean  of  Canterbury. 
Bishop  of  Carlisle. 
Bishop  Boyd  Carpenter 
Dean  of  Chester. 
Dean  Close. 
R.  W.  Dale,  D.D. 


J.  C.  Edghill,  D.D. 
Dean  of  Bangor. 
Bishop  Ellicott,  D.D. 
Archdeacon  Farrar. 
Canon  Fleming. 
Newman  Hall. 
Dr.  Livingstone. 
Bishop  of  London. 
J.  A.  Macfadyen,  D.D. 


R  Moffat,  D.D. 

Sir  W.  Muir,  K.C.S.I. 

J.  Parker,  D.D. 

W.  M.  Punshon,  D.D. 

Principal  Rainy,  D.D. 

C. H.  Spurgeon. 

A.  Moody  Stuart,  D.D. 

Archbishop  Tait. 

Canon  Tristram. 
And  others. 

"fust  the  book  to  give  to  some  overworked  pastor  who  has  many  speeches  to  make, 
with  little  time for  study,  and  less  money  to  spare  for  new  books.  We  have  here  * 
collection  of  some  of  the  best  speeches  of  many  of  the  great  platform  speakers  of  our 
time"— Christian. 

ANECDOTES  ILLUSTRATIVE  OF  OLD  TESTA- 
MENT TEXTS, 

With  over  500  Illustrations  and  Index  of  Texts.     Crown  8vo,  cloth. 
$1.50.     Being  the  8th  vol.  of  the  Clerical  Library. 

"It  will  he  found  invaluable  to  all  preachers,  teachers,  and  public  speakers,  as 
placing  at  their  command  a  vast  storehouse  of  incidents  with  which  to  enforce  mmd 
'xsten  an  idea  or  point  a  moral." — N.  Y.  Christian  at  Work. 


Copies  sent  by  mail,  postpaid,  on  receipt  of  price. 


THE  CLERICAL  LIBRARY- (Continued?. 

OUTLINES  OF  SERMONS  TO  CHILDREN. 

With  numerous  Anecdotes.      Crown  8vo.      Cloth,  $1.50.      (Being  the 
3d  vol.  of  the  Clerical  Library.) 

"  These  sermons  are  by  men  of  acknowledged  eminence  in  possessing  the  happy 
faculty  0/  preaching  interestingly  to  the  young.  As  an  evidence  of  this,  as  well  as 
0/  the  character  of  the  teaching,  it  is  only  necessary  to  mention  such  namet  as 
those  0/  William  Arnot,  thk  Bonaks,  Principal  Cairns,  John  Edmond,  D.D., 
Drs.  Oswald  Dykes  and).  Marshall  Lang,  besides  many  others." — Canada  Pres- 
tyterian. 

"This  book  contains  a  very  high  grade  of  thinking,  with  enough  illustrations  and 
anecdotes  to  stock  the  average  preacher  for  many  years  of  children's  sermons." — Epis- 
topal  Register. 

"They  are  full  of  suggestions  which  will  be  found  exceedingly  helpful ;  the  habit  oi 
using  apt  and  simple  illustrations,  and  of  repeating  good  anecdotes,  begets  a  faculty 
and  power  which  are  of  value.  This  volume  is  a  treasure  which  a  hundred  pastors  will 
find  exceedingly  convenient  to  draw  upon." — N.  Y.  Evangelist. 

PULPIT  PRAYERS  BY  EMINENT  PREACHERS. 

Crown  8vo.  Cloth,  $1.50.  (Being  the  4th  vol.  of  the  Clerical  Library.) 

The  British  Quarterly  says:  "  These  prayers  are  fresh  and  strong;  the  or. 
dinary  ruts  of  conventional  forms  are  left  and  the  fresh  thoughts  of  living  hearts 
are  uttered.  The  excitement  of  devotional  thought  and  sympathy  must  be  great  in 
the  offering  of  such  prayers,  especially  when,  as  here,  spiritual  intensity  and  de- 
voutness  are  as  marked  as  freshness  and  strength.  Such  prayers  have  their  char- 
acteristic  aaoantages." 

London  Literary  World:  "Used  aright,  this  volume  is  likely  to  be  of  great  ser- 
vice to  ministers.  It  will  show  them  how  to  put  variety,  freshness  and  literary  beauty, 
*s  well  as  spirituality  of  tone,  into  their  extemporaneous  prayers." 


Anecdotes  Illustrative  of  New  Testament  Texts. 

With  600  Anecdotes.      Crown  8vo,  400  pages.     Cloth,  $1.50.     (Being 
the  5th  vol.  of  the  Clerical  Library.) 

London  Christian  Leader  says  :  "  This  is  one  of  the  most  valuable  books  of 
anecdote  that  we  have  ever  seen.  There  is  hardly  one  anecdote  that  is  not  of  first- 
rate  quality.  They  have  been  selected  by  one  who  has  breadth  and  vigor  of  mind 
as  well  as  keen  spiritual  insight,  and  some  of  the  most  effective  illustrations  of 
Scripture  texts  have  a  rich  vein  of  humor  of  exquisite  quality." 

The  London  Church  Bells:  "The  anecdotes  are  given  in  the  order  of  the  texts 
which  they  illustrate.  There  is  an  ample  index.  The  book  is  one  which  thos«  who 
have  to  prepare  sermons  and  addresses  will  do  well  to  have  at  their  elbow." 

N.  Y.  Christian  at  Work :  "As  an  apt  illustration  often  proves  the  nail 
which  fastens  the  truth  in  the  mind,  this  volume  will  prove  an  admirable 
and  valuable  aid,  not  only  to  clergymen,  but  to  sunday-school  teachers 
and  Christian  workers  generally."  ! 

N.  Y.  Observer  :  "A  book  replete  with  incident  and  suggestion  applicable  to  every 
fecasina." 


Copies  sent  by  mail,  postpaid,  on  receipt  of  price. 


CHOICE    STANDARD    WORKS. 
.1   NEW  EDITION  OF 

THE  HISTORY  OF  THE  CRUSADES. 

A..  XX    300-1270. 
IN   EIGHT  PARTS,  WITH  AN  INDEX  OF  47  PAGES. 

By  JOSEPH   FRANCOIS    MICHAUD. 

And  a  Preface  and  Supplementary  Chapter  by  Hamilton  W.  Mabie. 
3    vols.,    crown    8vo,    Cloth.       $3.75. 

(Bound  in  Hal/  Calf  extra,  $3  per  vol.) 
"  The  ability,  diligence  and  faithfulness  with  which  Michaud 
has  executed  his  great  task  are  undisputed,  and  it  is  to  his  well-filled 
volumes  that  all  must  resort  for  copious  and  authentic  facts  and  luminous 
views  respecting  this  most  romantic  and  wonderful  period  in  the  annala 
of  the  world." 

This  work  has  long  been  out  of  print,  and  its  republication  is  oppor- 
tune. It  narrates  very  fully  and  in  a  picturesque  and  interesting  manner, 
the  most  striking  episode  in  European  history,  and  will  add  an  invalu- 
able work  to  the  historical  literature  which  has  recently  been  put  into  the 
hands  of  the  reading  public  in  editions  combining  sound  scholarship 
and  reasonable  prices.  Of  the  first  excellence  as  an  authority,  full  of 
romantic  incident,  graphic  in  style,  this  new  edition  of  that  which  is  by 
Universal  consenf 

THE  STANDARD  HISTORY  OF  THE  CRUSADES, 

vill  have  equal  value  for  the  student  and  general  reader. 


RIVERSIDE    EDITION    OF 

ACAULAY'S    ESSAYS, 

Critical,   Historical  and    Miscellaneous.     With  a  Biographical  and 

Critical  Introduction  from  the   well-known  pen   of  Mr.  E.   P. 

Whipple.     3  vols.,  crown    8vo,  Cloth,  3,000   pages. 

With  a  fine  Portrait  on  Steel.      Price,  $3.75, 

(Bound  in  Half  Calf  extra,  $3  per  vol.) 
In  this  edition  the  essays  have  been  arranged  in  chronological  order, 
so  that  their  perusal  affords,  so  to  speak,  a  complete  biographical  portrait- 
ure of  the  brilliant  author's  mind.   It  contains  the  pure  text  of  the  author 
and  the  exact  punctuation,  orthography,  etc..  of  the  English  editions. 

A  very  full  index  (55  pages)  has  been  specially  prepared  for  this 
edition.  In  this  respect  it  is  superior  to  the  English  editions,  and  wholly 
unlike  any  other  American  edition. 


Copies  sent  bv  mail,  postpaid,  on  receipt  of  price. 


IMPORTANT  RELICIOUS   WORKS. 

€l)c  Dragon,  Jmage  m  Demon; 

Or,  The  Three  Religions  of  China. 

CONFUCIANISM;  BUDDHISM,  and  TAOISM. 

Giving  an  account  of  the  Mythology,  Idolatry,  and  Demonolatry  of  th« 
Chinese.  By  Rev.  Hampden  C.  Du  Bose,  14  years  a  Missionary 
in  China.  With  188  Illustrations,  Engraved  in  China.  Crown 
octavo.     Beautifully  bound.     Cloth,  full  gilt  side.     $2.00. 

"  The  writer  has  drawn  his  water  front  native  wells,  the  facts  being  Mostly 
gathered  from  Chinese  sources.  The  pen  is  not  held  by  one  seated  in  a  professor's 
study,  but  by  0  plain  man,  who  daily  wal&s  to  and  fro  among  idolators,  and  testifies 
of  what  he  has  seen  and  heard,  written  in  a  plain  style,  so  that  the  young  as  well  as 
the  old  may  understand  it." 

"  As  a  writer,  he  has  drawn  largely  on  native  sources.  There  is  much  here  that 
will  be  of  value,  even  to  those  familiar  with  the  literature  on  the  subject.  One  walks  as 
with  a  familiar  friend  with  every  thing  in  the  country,  who  simply  talks  to  him  about 
these  religions  as  known  by  the  literati  and  the  common  people.  The  style  is 
remarkably  lucid,  and  the  interest  is  sustained  from  the  first  to  the  last." — Northern 
Christian  Advocate. 

"  We  commend  it  as  a  clear  and  popular  presentation  of  the  subject  about  which 
such  vague  views  prevail." — Lutheran  Quarterly . 

"The  work  will  make  a  valuable  addition  to  our  young  people's  libraries,  and  will 
afford  much  food  for  reflection." — Zion's  Herald. 

"  Here  is  a  vast  store  of  information  about  the  Chinese  manners  and  customs  in 
all  the  phases  of  life.  The  author  has  also  studied  the  writings  of  Edkins,  Eitet, 
Legge,  and  Beal,  and  the  various  Chinese  sages." — N.  Y.  Commercial. 

London  Saturday  Review — "  It  is  a  book  likely  to  be  widely  read.  Of  the 
author's  minute  description  of  popular  and  household  deities,  and  the  mass  of  legend 
connected  with  them,  the  book  and  its  curious  illustrations  can  alone  speak.  Mr.  Du 
Bose  has  much  to  say  that  is  fresh  and  suggestive,  and  he  says  it  with  force  and 
conviction. " 

MOMENTS  ON  THE   MOUNT, 

A  Series  of  108  Devotional  Meditations. 

By  Rev.  Geo.  Matheson,  D.D.     (From  2d  EngSsh  edition.)     f2mo, 
cloth.     $1.25. 

"  In  '  Moments  on  the  Mount'  we  are  brought  into  contact  with  a  writer  whose 
whole  soul  is  saturated  •with  Divine  ideas,  and  to  whom  Scriptural  images  are  the 
exponents  and  symbols  of  spiritual  conceptions.  This  volume  is  not  one  to  be  read 
through  at  a  sitting  and  then  laid  aside  ;  rather,  each  meditation  is  to  be  pondered 
over  and  enjoyed  singly  and  separately,  and  to  be  dwelt  upon  until  it  becomes  a  per- 
manent possession.  ' — The  Scotsman. 

Rev.  Dr.  John  Hall  says  each  section  is  self-contained,  practical,  starting  with  a 
Bible  word  and  bringing  out  in  a  meditative  form  its  meaning.  For  the  sick-room,  the 
aged,  or  for  the  closet-table  of  any  Christian,  it  is  a  thoroughly  fit  and  good  book. 


Copies  sent  by  mail  on  receipt  of  price. 
A.  C.  ARMSTRONG  &  SON, 


DR.  DAVIDSON'S  NEW  BOOK  for  the  YOUNG 

7'  SURE  TO  SUCCEED. 


»*mo  volume,  handsomely  bound,  illuminated  cloth.     Price, 
CONTENTS: 


The  Sf.cret  of  a  Successful  Life. 

What  is  Man  ? 

Art  Thou  in  Health? 

Physical  Recreation. 

The  Body  to  be  Cared  for. 

Strong  in  Divine  Grace. 

Giants  in  these  Days. 

Doing  Exploits. 

Fighting  the  Lion. 

The  Way  to  Prosper. 

Why  not  Confess  Christ? 


$125 


Fatal 


A  Smooth   Road,  but 

Ending. 
Four  Anchors  out  of  the  Stern. 
A  Choice  Young  Man. 
The  Model  Christian. 
Sobriety  of  Mind. 
Right  Hearts  and  Tight  Hands. 
Our  Father's  Business. 
The  Secret  of  Strength. 
Our  Duty  to  God  and  Man. 


N.  Y.  Observer  says:  "We  heartily  and  earnestly  recommend 
this  volume  to  all  who  are  interested  in  promoting  the  welfare  of  young 
men.  The  counsel  it  gives  is  infused  with  so  much  common  sense  and  prac- 
tical wisdom,  that  it  must  command  the  respect,  if  not  the  hearty  assent, 
of  every  young  man  to  whom  it  comes." 

Christian  Herald :  "  A  book  FULL  of  SOUND  advice  TO  young  mkn, 
showing  that  the  most  successful  life  in  the  world  without  Christ  is  only 
failure." 

Phila.  Presbyterian :  "  The  eminent  author  recognizes  the  needs  of  the 
body  as  well  as  of  the  soul,  and  shows  himself  in  sympathy  with  the  aims 
and  ambitions  of  the  young.  His  style  is  clear,  and  the  arguments  are  so 
true  that  they  cannot  fail  of  conviction." 

Journal  and  Messenger  :  "  A  father  may  well  put  this  work  into  the 
hands  of  his  son;  and  committees  should  make  a  note  OF  IT  for 

THEIR    SUNDAY-SCHOOL   LIBRARIES." 

Baltimore  Baptist :  "We  should  be  glad  to  see  this  book  in  the  hands 
of  every  young  man  in  the  land.     Good  would  result." 

N.  Y.  Witness:  "Any  one  desirous  of  awakening  in  a  young  man  as- 
pirations to  a  nobler  plane  of  living,  will  do  well  to  give  him  this  book." 

Zion's  Herald:  "Practical,  plain-spoken  addresses  to  young  men. 
They  are  written  in  an  easy  and  interesting,  yet  forcible  and  pungent, 
style,  and  convey  wholesome  truths  which  all  young  men  would  do  well  tc 
fol'-w." 


Copies  sent  by  mail  on  receipt  of  price. 


BOOKS    FOR    YOUNG    PEOPLE. 

TALKS  WITH  YOUNG  MEN. 

By  J.  Thain  Davidson.     i2mo,  in  handsome  cloth  binding,  illuminates 
cover.     Price,  $1.25. 

"These  talks  are  direct,  practical  and  pungent,  such  as  young  men  like  to  near, 
f  hey  are  crowded  with  points  of  counsel  and  direction  ;  they  will  be  invaluable  to  any 
young  man,  and  all  so  plainly  and  forcibly  told,  and  so  fully  illustrated,  that  one  can  but 
pursue  the  reading  of  them  to  the  end.  The  graphic  descriptions  of  human  nature,  and 
sharp  laying  open  of  motive  in  worldly  and  selfish  living,  show  an  unusually  keen 
tense  of  observation  and  understanding  of  the  human  heart.  It  should  have  a  wide 
circulation." — N.  Y.  Evangelist. 

Rev.  Mr.  SP  URGEON  says  :  ' '  The  author  gives  young  men  fine 
advice — full  of  grace  and  thought — enlivened  by  story  and proverb ,  fresh 
■with  sympathy,  and  on  fire  with.  zeal.  These  short  talks  are  just  what 
they  should  be,  and  all  that  they  further  need  is  to  be  largely  distributed 
among  the  crowds  of  our  advancing  manhood.  TO  BEGIN  TO  READ  IS 
TO  BE  BOUND  TO  CONTINUE;  THE  TALKS  ARE  SO  SENSIBLE 
THAT  NO  ONE  WISHES  TO  SILENCE  THE  TALKER-BY  LAYING 
ASIDE  THE   BOOK." 

2V.  V.  Christian  Advocate  and  Journal  says :  "  This  volume  will  find 
readers  wherever  it  is  known.  The  talks  are  fervent  and  DIRECT  AP- 
PEALS TO  THE  HEART.  THE  STYLE  IS  ANIMATED  AND  PICTUR- 
ESQUE. AND  THE  BOOK  WILL  BE  READ  BY  ALL  WHO  BUY  IT  " 


Jiy  the  same  Author. 

FOREWARNED-FOREARMED 

In  cloth.      Uniform  with  "  Talks  With  Young  Men."     i2mo.      $1.25. 

Methodist  Recorder  :  "To  young  men  we  would  specially  recommend  this  useful, 
earnest,  and  interesting  book.  They  will  find  themselves  not  preached  to,  but  talked 
with,  and  that  they  have  in  Mr.  Davidson  a  friend  wise,  tender  and  true.  Fathers 
could  not  do  better  than  place  this  excellent  volume  in  the  hands  of  their  sons  at  once." 


DR.  DAVIDSON'S  NEW  BOOK  FOR  YOUNG  MEN 

THE    CITY    YOUTH. 

Uniform  with  "  Talks  With  Young  Men."     i2mo,  cloth.     $1.25* 

It  has  been  the  Author's  aim,  in  the  preparation  of  this  book,  to  supply  a  genial 
and  useful  Friend,  who  will  talk  cheerily  yet  seriously  to  the  new-comer,  and  pu» 
him  on  his  guard  against  the  moral  dangers  by  which  he  is  certain  to  be  beset. 


THE  CHURCHETTE: 

A  Year's  Sermons  and  Parables  for  the  Young. 
By  the  Rev.  J.  R.  Howatt.  Uniform  with  "  Talks  With  Young  Men." 
Cloth.  $1.25. 
Ziterary  World :  "Short,  simple,  cheery,  colloquial,  imaginative,  impressive,  fh« 
sermons  yield  abundant  evidence  that,  as  he  says,  his  '  aim  has  been  to  speak  to  chil- 
dren in  the  sunshine.'  There  is  also  a  freshness,  not  to  say  an  originality,  about  th« 
•ubjects  select«d  and  their  treatment,  which  gives  a  special  charm  to  the  book  ' 


14  Years  of  Toil   and  Adventure   in   Africa. 


ALEXANDER  MACKAY  OF  UGANDA. 

A  LIFE.     By  his  Sister,  with  Portrait  and  Colored 
Map,  nearly  500  pages.     i2mo,  cloth,  $1.50. 


MR.  H.  M.  STANLEY  SAYS; 

"  It  would  have  cured  bc^fe  writer  and  hero  of  all  moping  to  have  seen  the  man- 
ner of  MACKAY'S  LIFE.  He  had  no  time  to  fret  and  groan  and  weep,  and  God 
knows  if  ever  a  man  had  reason  to  think  of  'graves  and  worms  and  oblivion,'  and  to 
be  doleful  and  lonely  and  sad,  Mackay  had,  when,  after  murdering  his  BISHOP 
(HANNINGTON)  and  burning  his  pupils  and  strangling  his  converts  and  clubbing 

to  death  his  dark  friends,  Mwanga  turned  his  eye  of  death  on  him TO  MY 

GREAT  GRIEF,  I  LEARN  THAT  MACKAY,  THE  BEST  MISSIONARY 
SINCE  LIVINGSTONE,  IS  DEAD!" 

"  Mrs.  Harrison  (his  sister)  has  suffered  the  story,  for  the  most  part,  to  tell  itself 
in  the  letters  and  journals  of  the  dead.  But  these  are  arranged  with  the  deft  grace  of 
a  woman's  fingers,  and  the  image  before  one  as  the  book  is  closed  witnesses  to  her 
success.  The  picture  shines  and  lives.  This  is  one  of  the  best  and  most  inspiring  of 
missionary  biographies." — British  Weekly, 

"  It  is  a  volume  of  intense  and  romantic  interest.  A  man  who  could  tramp  through 
African  jungles  when  he  was  reduced  to  a  skeleton  by  sickness  ;  who  could  transport 
a  small  steamer  from  the  coast  to  the  shores  of  Lake  Victoria  Nyanza  and  could  put  it 
together  again  after  it  was  wrecked  in  a  gale  ;  and  who  could  manage  the  barbarous 
King  Mwanga  with  such  consummate  tact,  was  no  ordinary  character." — Rev.  Dr. 
Theodore  L.  Cuyler. 

"  Mackay's  career  contained  more  that  would  stimulate  voung  men  to  self- 
sacrificing  lives  than  that  of  any  missionary  of  our  day." — The  Nation. 

"  It  is  a  wondrous  story,  and  Mackay's  name  is  one  of  those  which  we  are  sure 
the  Church  will  not  willingly  let  die." — Presbyterian. 

"  The  moral  courage  of  the  man  as  shown  in  many  instances  is  as  thrilling  as  it 
is  wonderful." — Boston  Advertiser. 

"  The  book  is  one  of  great  interest,  and  it  is  especially  refreshing  to  turn  from  th» 
revolting  disclosures  about  the  '  Rear  Guard  '  to  this  other  story  of  a  life  in  Central 
Africa— pure,  heroic,  and  saintly." — Lutheran  Quarterly. 

"  This  volume  contains  a  worthy  record  of  a  brave  man's  life  consecrated  to  pur- 
poses entirely  unworldly.  He  has  been  called  the  '  St.  Paul  of  Uganda.'  This  praise 
of  him,  if  rather  unhappy  in  the  use  of  terms,  was  intended  to  signify  none  too  much. 
Mackay's  devotion,  in  all  its  essentials,  was  altogether  apostolic  in  character."— N. 
Y.  Times. 

'■  The  story  of  his  life  is  so  grand  a  one  that  we  wish  it  cou'd  be  read  by  -svery 
young  man  connected  with  our  Christian  churches  at  home." — Literary  World. 

Copies  sent  by  mail,  post-paid,  on  receipt  of  price. 

A.  C.  ARMSTRONG  &  SON, 

51  East  10th  Street  (near  Broadway),  New  York. 


rr\iTD 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


OCfQ 


swot 


CI  39 


UCSD  Libr. 


;  -v.'.'  "■'■■'  ;  ■ ; :';:;:'  Sw^V.S 


"'-""'"^-"^'^""^r^fm 


-  -^as3**8^*'^ 


„v..:. 


